 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Rants and articles submitted by and for ex-Christians
By Dano
Exactly how does someone getting murdered, by being crucified, make me suitable or deserving to go to heaven, and if this is a requirement by God, that does qualify me to pass through the pearly gates, why do I have to believe it.
If God wanted and needed a sacrifice to himself before he will let anybody into heaven, then when the Romans finished killing Jesus, didn't we all have a ticket to paradise?
God supposedly knows which of us will believe it, and those who won't. What has that got to do with the deal? Once he gets his born of a virgin, boy murdered, then he should be happy. A deal is a deal.
Now I'm not going to ask you to explain how Jesus, and God, and the holy ghost can all three be the same being, or how Jesus knowing he was divine, and immortal could really die, because it would unfairly burden your intellect, so I will stick with the original question.
What has my belief got to do with the whole thing? God got what he wanted, so we all should be admitted to heaven! Case closed!
RIGHT?
To monitor comments posted to this topic, use
.
Exactly how does someone getting murdered, by being crucified, make me suitable or deserving to go to heaven, and if this is a requirement by God, that does qualify me to pass through the pearly gates, why do I have to believe it.
If God wanted and needed a sacrifice to himself before he will let anybody into heaven, then when the Romans finished killing Jesus, didn't we all have a ticket to paradise?
God supposedly knows which of us will believe it, and those who won't. What has that got to do with the deal? Once he gets his born of a virgin, boy murdered, then he should be happy. A deal is a deal.
Now I'm not going to ask you to explain how Jesus, and God, and the holy ghost can all three be the same being, or how Jesus knowing he was divine, and immortal could really die, because it would unfairly burden your intellect, so I will stick with the original question.
What has my belief got to do with the whole thing? God got what he wanted, so we all should be admitted to heaven! Case closed!
RIGHT?
To monitor comments posted to this topic, use
.
This is a very "magical" teaching by the church. The first bit of magic is that physical sacrifice somehow solves a spiritual problem. The second bit, given that you can swallow the first, is that you have to accept the free gift of Christ's sacrifice, but there is no clear instruction on how to accept it. You're just supposed to magically know if you've done it right or not. It gets really interesting when you consider that in order to accept the salvation message, it must be presented properly. What about those leaders that fuck it up, and people like us ask intelligent questions that go unanswered and we end up "leaving the fold". Obviously we'll burn in hell for denying Christ, but what is the real reason that we burn in hell though? Is it because of the shortcomings of these leaders, or is it because we chose not to be naive like little children and accept the message with blind faith, in which case it is the shortcomings of nonreligious people who have steered us wrong?
After being presented with dilemmas like this one, the Christian usually comes to the conclusion that "God knows the heart of each person". Well, if that's the case, then why does he need you trying to convince me of something that you've only heard second-hand, and are likely to fuck up in your presentation? Do you think you can do a better job than God can converting me? He apparently had no problem talking directly to people like Moses, the prophets, and Paul. Hell, he even made a donkey speak to get through to people. Jesus himself spoke with thousands of people. Why not ask God to spread his own message instead of entrusting it to sinners who can't do it right? I have a funny feeling we'd hear crickets more often if you did.
Despite them saying one doesn't have to "do" anything, there's always that catch. You "gotta believe!"
Doesn't make sense.
They feel that even if they were able to get you to see, and understand, the internal logic of their theology at this point your underlying premise of Gog's non-existance would still make it a pointless exercise at best.
"Most Christians will refuse to have this dicussion with someone who has taken an apriori position of God's non-existance.
They feel that even if they were able to get you to see, and understand, the internal logic of their theology at this point your underlying premise of Gog's non-existance would still make it a pointless exercise at best.
posted: May 03, 2007 "
Dano's answer to the latest Anonymous:
There is no way to say this, without appearing to have an apriori position about being an ex-Christian on an ex-Christian web site.
I am aware that you do not read much, because if you did you would know, that real live, borned again, true Christians, lurk on this site all the time, trying to answer our questions. They quote bible verse after bible verse, because they usually are not smart enough to understand the concept of "circular reasoning."
Any way, the reason I asked the question in the first place, is that my logic tells me that, if Jesus died as a substitute sacrifice, for me, in order for me to be forgiven for stuff that I might have done wrong, then my believing it is irrelevant!
So I ask again: What does my belief have to do with an event that took place 2000 years ago. He either died for my sins or he didn't!
Dan
chirp, chirp...
Could someone please shut those crickets up?
Well, maybe I'm not giving the Christians enough time to formulate an answer. They have to defend their mythology all the time, they're way too busy for us. Take for example the 50 points brought up on this site:
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
I could devote my life to theology and probably never come up with a sufficient explanation for all of them.
In all seriousness, I wish people had brought up these questions to me a long time ago. I had my own questions, but like so many others here was encouraged not to think, just to have faith. And if that wasn't good enough for me, then "save your questions for heaven" they said. God will answer everything there. If I had come across sites like this one or the one above when I was younger, I could've saved myself a ton of grief.
Please, Christians if you're serious about promoting truth, start using your brains. There are too many people out there who deliberately use religion to take advantage of you. Aside from them, there are millions who have accepted the religious lies and have promoted it themselves because they assumed that all the research had already been done, and every important Christian "truth" has already been proven. This site is full of these people, who luckily have seen the darkness that Christianity really is. There are still millions more.
Some of you Christians might be afraid to think that there may not be a God. I was devastated when I found out, but I wouldn't go back if I had the choice. When I discovered the truth about Christianity, I wanted to kill myself. I felt that I had nothing to live for. Over 20 years of my life was all about living for God. Well, I'm still alive, and I've even started to enjoy life. Is it because I'm free to do any wicked thing that I want to do? No, absolutely not.
I can now see that every action (as well as every inaction) has a consequence, and that some of these consequences are "good" and some are "bad". We don't need a God to point these things out to us. It's completely obvious to the sane. There are many things that I won't do because they have "bad" consequences. Most importantly, the golden rule still applies to me. I don't want people mistreating me, so I try not to mistreat them. I can still live my life to help others. In fact, I can probably be more effective, now that I don't have to live up to impossible standards and try to please a God who accepts nothing short of perfection.
I still have a lot to figure out, but I'd much rather be doing it now so that I can live the rest of my life to its fullest. I would be quite pissed off if I deconverted on my deathbed 50 years from now. Waking up from the deception earlier rather than later is definitely worth it.
but if I don't take them I may die,and then I don't take them, and I die, whose fault is that?
If I know that you have a disease and I make a medicine specificly for your version of that disease, and I offer it to you and you tell me to take a flying leap, how is that my fault?
If ,as sadly some aids patients have done, you start taking the medication and then stop because it doesn't suit you,and the disease
comes back, only worse, how is that my problem?
In historic Christian theology " Faith" is the instrumental cause of salvation not meritorious cause.
Faith is like a needle thorough which the vacine of salvation is received.
No analogy is perfect, and as I said previously, it only makes any logical sense within the context of a belief in the existence of God. If God does not exist the question is meaningless.
Thomas
The spiritual realm is something that we cannot fully comprehend and this is why God has done and continues to do all that is possible to let us know what He expects of His creation.
Man, who is both human and spirit has been given free will. This free will is the most tremendous gift (despite the fact that from the spiritual perspective, it's our greatest weakness) but it comes with a price. God wants us all to understand that any and all selfish acts contradict His holy and perfect will. By sinning, we have tainted our souls and no soul that is with blemish can be in the presence of God (ie. in Heaven). None of us can claim righteousness, none. We've all done things that are wrong & hurtful and we've done these things by our conscious choice.
If any man can acknowledge that he's done some mistakes in life (and I'm not talking about stubbing your toe) then he can agree that man's free will has caused him to do things that hurt others. Maybe:
- tease or physically hurt your sibling(s) while growing up
- steal when you know the other person earned that item and that it simply isn't right to take it
- carry strong judgmental and/or hateful feelings for any person or group for unwarranted reasons
- carry resentments despite multiple sincere pleas for reconciliation from the other person
- be quick to anger or impatience with coworkers, friends or family
- purposefully hurt our partner's feelings because of selfish reasons (ie. testing their love, inner resentments, inability to be honest and end relationship, etc...)
- lie to spouse or mate about what you were doing with friends
- disregard the sanctity of mind by letting it travel wherever it desires when it comes to impurity, hatred, lust, greed, etc...
- etc, etc....
Because God is pure spirit and perfectly holy, He knew that He could never allow us to be with Him at the end of our lives. His perfection would not allow Him to let us be with Him after death without something to "balance the equation". Suffice it to understand and accept that we are sinful beings. If we can accept this fact, then we might be able to understand how a perfectly holy being, God, would not be able to allow us to be with Him. In fact, I believe that in our sinful state, once we become pure spirit, our comprehension of God and His holiness will overwhelm us. To the point where we, ourselves, will be choosing to be separated from Him. His holy light will reveal everything about us, including all the gifts of life and spiritual graces that He had given us during our life.
To protect us from eternal separation, God had to do something that would cause a "loophole" for the human predicament. He decided that His son, the only righteous human to ever live, would be the holy sacrifice that He would give to humanity. God deemed it just to allow man to put their faith in His son, Jesus, for their salvation. By holding on to this faith in Jesus' ability to suffer for our sins, by paying the price we could never pay on our own, God has decided that man's soul can still be with Him in Heaven.
This new covenant that God has made with man has been presented to us in the New Testament and it is Good News indeed!
John
If I had come across sites like this one or the one above when I was younger, I could've saved myself a ton of grief.
I second that.
Please try to remember that "the spiritual realm is something that we cannot fully comprehend".
You ask: "Doesn't that mean that there is something that god-the-all-powerful is powerless to do?"
Indeed there is, He can't give us free will and, at the same time, force us to choose good in all the choices of our lives. We can't have it both ways.
At the end of the day, God's offer is quite simple. Do you agree that man is capable of sin, that you are a sinner? If yes, then don't you think you should consider accepting His offer of reconciliation? If you read the New Testament with this understanding and decide to sincerely accept Jesus' offer, you'll be choosing to live your life by working diligently at choosing everything good. During prayer time, you can begin to nurture a relationship with Jesus and discuss any successes or failures to this end. I would recommend seeking spiritual growth during prayer and not praying for anything worldly. Your journey with Jesus is to grow in holiness. It doesn't mean that we don't discuss our day to day stresses, He most certainly wants to share everything in your life. Just keep in mind the ultimate goal of your journey, being truly righteous, like Jesus. It's a tall order indeed and we will never succeed perfectly but God's redemptive gift in Jesus is what "balances the equation", if you will.
What was God's alternative to the human souls that meet Him?
Should He have chosen to responding the human souls with:
"I know you lived a life of unholiness, never even acknowledging My existence but come on in, welcome to Heaven."
"I know you understood that treating your spouse and children with such anger and violence is unacceptable but come on in, welcome to Heaven."
"I know you've taught your children to despise and/or deny me their whole life and that you've offended me with these actions but come on in, welcome to Heaven."
Despite the fact that these responses would be contrary to a God that is perfect Love, Mercy and Justice, is this a God we could respect or even love? Would our own children love us more if we let them do whatever they want and when they've hurt us enough, come to us and say sorry Mom and Dad only because the punishment is over their head? Would we believe that they are sincere? We certainly would believe they're sincere once we see them making an effort to turn away from the past hurtful behaviors.
With regards to your question on why could Jesus be with sinners, please remember that He was human, yet perfectly righteous. God is spirit and this is something we will only comprehend once we leave this world. At least He was good enough to let us know of His existence but all the while never taking away from our free will. He gives us the choice, the ultimate free will, to choose to be with Him or not...
John
So, are you dead or did you just get back from a visit in that other world?
If you are just a regular living person, how do you make a statement like that and then expect other people to consider it to be a universal truth.
How do you "choose" the right thing, if you don't comprehend it?
AND, if you can't comprehend "it" until you leave this world, how could YOU know what God is or isn't? For all you know, he might be a big glowing glob of galactic gas and glue?
Would you trust or accept my version of faith, if I said the universe was made by a pair of leaping leprachauns in love, and they are waiting to give us our very own rainbow, upon entering their far out world.
They have been sending me messages, and I have been writting them down. They are my magic makers and I, their lucky charm.
Do you believe me John? I have no way to understand what it is I am believing. I keep listening for them. It is more like a feeling.
Please say you accept my faith, because if you deny this, you may not gain enterance into the far out world, where the leaping leprachauns live. And I, will have to find someone else to convince.
I don't really know how to answer many of the questions, coz frankly I don't know.I didn't go to a bible college for that matter.
We all have our "truths". I do not expect people to agree with my statements, nor would I expect them to expect me to agree with theirs.
Believing in God is taking a "leap of faith". It is a personal decision.
Why did Jesus hang out with the sick, the weak and the whores? Man..that is a tough question...haha...that's because he has said before that he had come for "them". They needed Him more than us normal people. He came for the outcasts, and for those who would believe in Him. Yes, he came for those who was rejected. Why do you think he was born in a stable for that very reason? For the poor shepherds to go and see his birth.
As for being Holy, He meant that when he is in the Spirit form, because of who He is, and not so much because he can't hang out with us. Because his holiness will destroy a person who lived to see God's face.
I remember reading this because God had to cover himself to prevent Moses from dying by hiding his face when His Spirit form spoke to Moses.
God's light is so bright that the people who Moses was leading (after crossing the red sea) could not see his Moses's face after that as the light was reflected on moses' face, and he had to cover his face with a veil before talking to the people.
As for the thing about Hell and HEaven and blah blah blah, if you read in Genesis, please do notice that God did not create Hell in the first place. It was never his intention. Of course, as the story goes, there was a huge war in Heaven, and the devil got thrown out.
As for the thing about having contradictions about the bible belief...let's just say that every christian will go through that phase. I went through that...and I decided it was either I turn my back on this, or I worshipped the many 4-5 chinese gods that my grandmother did.That really did not strike my fancy...
and anyway, no matter how much reason or rationale a person like me tries to puts up for another person, it really does not make a difference...if they have already made up in their mind that they don't believe and will not believe.
I think...well, the best thing is do something a bit more productive with our time like go learn how to cook creme brulee or something!!
Because God is pure spirit and perfectly holy, He knew that He could never allow us to be with Him at the end of our lives. His perfection would not allow Him to let us be with Him after death without something to "balance the equation".
I'm trying to figure out how this stuff ever made sense to me. Was it just because I heard it so often from such an early age that it never occurred to me to shake my head and say, "huh?!"
His holy light will reveal everything about us, including all the gifts of life and spiritual graces that He had given us during our life.
Then wouldn't it be prudent of God to let his holy light reveal that NOW? Instead of after it's too late? I know that some would respond that it's because we aren't yet spirit and so cannot understand yet. But God made us flesh, did he not? Adam had a body. If we can't "get it" until we are only spirit, it would seem God created us with a pretty major design flaw, from BEFORE the so-called "fall".
Truly,
Jamie
He gives enough evidence for those that are willing to believe, He withholds enough evidence for those the don't want to believe.
You're free do what you want. Do what you wish but try not to forget that we are still accountable for all of it.
Creme brulee...hmm, Chaeye just gave me a good idea, dinning out tonight!
(I'll keep the creme brulee for the chefs)
Take care, John
The free will you describe is ridiculous. Apply it to the flying spaghetti monster and you get the same result. If I really truly want to see evidence of the FSM, I will find the evidence. Should I then believe that his noodly appendage revealed that evidence to me?
Secondly, I know I can't prove this to you, but I really believed in God. This goes much further than just being "willing" to believe. I "did" believe. When you wake up from your fantasy, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
You seem like a fairly reasonable person, so perhaps you can help me understand something. Why is it that believers always assume that we (non-believers) demand "conclusive" evidence of anything? I, for one, have never seen absolute proof of any empirical fact, so I don't require it, and don't expect it. What I do ask for is credible evidence; that is, evidence of a variety that is not based on logical fallacies, and has not been shown to be extremely unreliable in other contexts.
So, John, what I ask believers to provide is credible evidence of their respective deities. The existence of ardent believers, while a form of evidence, is perhaps the weakest of all evidence; I don't consider it credible in itself. Disliking the alternative is not evidence, as this is a logical fallacy. Explaining the unexplained with "god did it" is another form of fallacy. Can you provide something of substance to support your belief? That's what we ask believers for--not conclusive proof. Thus far, I've seen none.
Sounds like you want conclusive evidence, that doesn't sound like true freedom from God to me? (a.k.a. free will).
John, can you explain how conclusive evidence takes away my free will? There's pretty good evidence that jumping off a cliff would be fatal, but I'm still free to do that.
He withholds enough evidence for those the don't want to believe.
What if you believed for decades, and one day came to the realization that you've never seen any credible evidence?
You're free do what you want. Do what you wish but try not to forget that we are still accountable for all of it.
Except it really isn't much of a choice, is it? Don't believe and you get a one-way ticket to hell.
"...If ,as sadly some aids patients have done, you start taking the medication and then stop because it doesn't suit you,and the disease
comes back, only worse, how is that my problem?..."
It's not. Your problem begins when the patient _doesn't_ get sick after all, even (especially) without the medicine, but your medicine-induced sickness keeps on getting worse the longer you keep taking it.
Just a point of information for you, John. When you are talking to the members here, bear in mind that there are actually at least two communities living (in harmony) under the same roof. Some of the members don't believe in a god at all (or don't care), and some believe in god, but just not Xtianity. If you are new to this site, you might not have had time to pick this up yet. Of course, if you think that there _is_ no god except as revealed by Xtianity, then that's a different matter.
For the former group, of which I'm a member, a lot of what the visiting Xtian has to say is just so much wasted verbiage, because we're out of phase. You calibrate your number system starting with 1 (god exists), and my number system starts at 0 (god doesn't exist unless and until you demonstrate that she does). That's okay by me, because I see it; but I've witnessed a lot of needless strife for Xtians who were unable to step back and look at the two calibration strips, who can't accept that they haven't scored a touchdown on what the other person considers his 1-yard-line.
Jesus, I can't get that creme brulee out of my mind. I can see myself eating some of that tonight but for the fact that I don't have any. See what you've done, Cheayee?
Is this what hell's gonna be like?
"...If ,as sadly some aids patients have done, you start taking the medication and then stop because it doesn't suit you,and the disease
comes back, only worse, how is that my problem?...""
I'm John and I never wrote that text. It was someone named Thomas.
For the person asking "Can you provide something of substance to support your belief?"
I think I can, it would be the four written testimonies with the obvious objective of conveying something truthfully. These men testified to us on what they witnessed and there's a long list of reasons why the historicity of these texts is reliable. I don't believe that they all chose to be killed for a lie. Like I said before, "He gives us the choice, the ultimate free will, to choose to be with Him or not...". It sounds like many of you have made your choice, I know I've made mine.
Take care,
John
None of them were written in the supposed lifetime of Jesus... Whose "miracles" went completely unreported in the Roman occupiers' writings of that period. And there are no civic or astronomical records or lay writings to confirm any prolonged solar eclipse or earthquake in the region at the time that Jesus was supposedly executed.
We have not confirmed that the gospel "witnesses" ever existed. They, along with their eponymous books, could easily be literary fabrications.
The persona of Jesus (a very common name in the region, BTW) suffers from some profound psychiatric disorders consistent with authors who didn't know what the hell they were doing and didn't take the time to proofread.
I would be equally justified in demanding that you read the Poetic Edda and start offering blóts to the Norse gods... After all, the Eddas reference Atli, a.k.a. Attila the Hun -- A RealHistoricalPerson™.
Oh, and I have a crème brûlée mix down in my kitchen. Just desserts for all!
Why doesn't God just come on the nightly news and say?: "I made you folks with a lot of flaws, and I'm sorry that I tried to make it look like it was your fault, so I have decided to use my omnipotency to fix you. Starting now, the idea of evil and sin and suffering, and pain, and torment, is out.
It is no longer necessary for you to believe that I require any kind of Pagan sacrifice of any kind.
You will still be individuals, but I am going to be truly omnibenevolent from now on, and make you all happy"
He (she) (IT), can do "anything," right?
Dan
I think Astreja already gave you a very good reply. Let me emphasize that your assertion about the gospels being written "with the obvious objective of conveying something truthfully" is unfounded. They were all anonymous hagiographic tracts written long after the "fact". They borrow from and redact each other, and very likely other written sources (e.g. the hypothesized "Q" document). They are brimming with midrashic interpolation, and they show very obvious signs of embellishment through time. The authors themselves do not claim to be witnesses to any of the miraculous events, and they do not divulge anything specific about how they came to "know" of what they write. There are many hagiographic documents of this sort, and nobody takes them seriously--why are the gospels assumed to be different? Answer: that too is an article of faith.
He went on to say "These men testified to us on what they witnessed and there's a long list of reasons why the historicity of these texts is reliable."
No. There is a mountain of apologetics for this, to be sure, but it's all predicated upon simplistic arguments, such as the "independence" of the testimonies, or their "realistic tone", or the stature of the (unknown!) authors, or corroboration by other sources (there is essentially none), or proximity to the "actual" events (which is circular), or references to historically verifiable places or events (just like any good fiction), etc. etc. etc.
He also said "I don't believe that they all chose to be killed for a lie."
Nor do I. There is no reason to believe that any of them were actually martyred for the simple reason that we don't know who they were. But even if they were martyred, all it would show is that they believed what they wrote, just like the 9/11 hijackers believed they would find themselves in heaven with 72 virgins. People believe lots of wacky things to the point of martyrdom. If anything, such behavior should cast doubt on the belief; it certainly does not demonstrate that the belief is true.
This is actually a very big topic. Suffice it to say that many of us have studied the gospels extensively and find that all claims to their authority are extraordinary exaggerations based upon wishful thinking and misinformation.
Do you have anything else?
I hear you completely, suffering sucks! The only way I make peace with this, is that true freedom and the inability to do evil are mutually exclusive. We can't have no evil and be free at the same time. So yes, i think anything is possible with God but He can't make things that are mutually exclusive, inclusive.
I also disagree that having conclusive evidence of God would still make us truly free. With this type of evidence I don't think that He'd really be receiving people that have honestly turned their will towards him. I don't know if this is a good analogy but it might be like a super famous/rich person wondering if her/his future spouse really loves them for themselves? I don't love Jesus because of fear, I love because I do see Him as righteous and I agree with His description of man being sinners. I love righteousness and always seek his guidance with life choices. I think that it's easy to love him if we recognize how great he is and we want to be like Him. Don't get me wrong I do still fear His judgment so I hope and work to be obedient to the little angel on my shoulder and not the little devil on the other. :)
Anywho, it's pretty interesting to discuss but after everything, it's always our personal choice. Nothing anyone ever said to me, made me believe, it was personal experience and I guess, God that helped/helps me with my faith. He's in charge of everything so he must have taken pity on me at some point. ;)
Cheers, John
Jim said- "But even if they were martyred, all it would show is that they believed what they wrote, just like the 9/11 hijackers believed they would find themselves in heaven with 72 virgins. People believe lots of wacky things to the point of martyrdom. If anything, such behavior should cast doubt on the belief; it certainly does not demonstrate that the belief is true."
Personally, I see a world of difference with what the hijackers believed and what the 1st Christians believed. Nothing these hijackers believed or it's 1st Muslims, was testimony of verifiable fact, it is the product of years of brain washing. The 1st Christians, and there were thousands, knew what was written in these Gospels and had lived during Jesus' ministry. They gave up their core beliefs and many, their lives, to follow Jesus. Again, i find it hard to believe that people chose to die for a lie.
I think that man is very capable of being led astray with manipulative individuals that claim enlightenment. Many of these persons have a charisma and a manipulative inclination that can convince hundreds even thousands to believe what they claim to have witnessed. Example, with the Koran, the only documentation of what Mohammed saw/learned in the cave, came many years after the fact. Nothing comparable to the Gospels and it had no factual statements that would lead it's followers to doubt if they could not corroborate the statements. The Gospels are full of these, the 1st Christians would have had an immediate uprising if the Gospel statement were truly false. Everything these Muslims believed are based on Mohammad's words. He must have been one convincing individual to amass such a following.
Present day Muslims and Christians are often believers through societal and/or family influences, there's no denying that fact. The difference lies in the 1st Muslims and the 1st Christians, worlds apart in my opinion.
John
If god existed it would be within its power to reveal its existence without revealing its identity. Thus saving human free will. We would have the free will to decide what deity it is that revealed itself as god. We wouldn't be forced to automatically believe that it was jesus, or jehova, or a spahgetti monster, the choice would be ours.
If we receive proof of the existence of deity it doesn't automatically mean that the deity is the judao-christian god.
Also, sin is a biblical term that describes an act against gods will. Using it in an argument for or against god belief is concedeing that there is a god, he has a will, and we understand that will. To say man is sinful reverts the argument to "the bible says so". You haven't given us any credible evidence to believe the bible other than what's in the bible. I admit to being imperfect, but perfection is a standard that is arbitrary.
John said "...i find it hard to believe that people chose to die for a lie." I hear this very line from Christians frequently, and it makes absolutely no sense. First, it's a straw man. Nobody is claiming that anybody willingly died for something that is known to be a lie. Please note that I said essentially the opposite. Both the supposed Christian martyrs and the 9/11 hijackers died for what they believed to be true. The point is--and I hope you can agree with me here--that people can and do die for mistaken beliefs. Martyrdom does not imply the truth of the belief.
As an aside, I'll inject a little note on logic. Let's look at the claim "people do not chose to die for a lie." One could express this in propositional logic as
known to be false ==> ~ martyr
where I use "~" as the symbol for logical negation, and "==>" is (material) implication. In other words, if something is known to be false (i.e. a lie), then nobody will be a martyr for it. I have no problem with this implication. Now, let's take the contrapositive of this implication, which gives us the logically equivalent statement
martyr ==> ~ known to be false
In other words, if somebody chooses to be a martyr, then it is NOT the case that they know it to be false. This is actually a weaker statement than the one I made, which is that they believe it to be true. I say it's weaker because
known to be false ==> ~ believed,
or, taking the contrapositive,
believed ==> ~ known to be false,
but the converse is not so: that is, if one does NOT know something to be false, it does not follow that one believes it. (I do not know it to be false that there is life on other planets, yet this does not mean I believe it to be so.) Therefore, my statement logically implies yours, but yours does not logically imply mine. In other words, my statement (a martyr actually believes what he dies for) is stronger than yours. For this reason, I'm perplexed by believers who respond to me by saying "nobody dies for a lie", as if it somehow contradicts what I said.
One last comment. John said "...the 1st Christians would have had an immediate uprising if the Gospel statement were truly false." This is quite an assertion! Is it your contention that every hagiographic account that was not correct caused some kind of a backlash? Did the Book of Mormon cause an uprising? How about the Koran? And, by the way, there is a difference between something being false and knowing that something is false. It is the latter that could cause a negative response, not the former. But that's another discussion.
By getting distracted with the minutia of contrapositives and converses, I forgot to point out the overarching problem with your argument, John. Asserting that something is "verifiable fact" clearly does not make it verifiable, nor does it make it fact. The entire point in question is whether the Christian dogma is factual or mythical. Therefore, any appeal to that commits the fallacy of begging the question.
Jim said- "The point is--and I hope you can agree with me here--that people can and do die for mistaken beliefs. Martyrdom does not imply the truth of the belief."
I could not agree with you more. People will die for just about anything they believe in, this cannot be debated.
My point is that people will not die for something that they absolutely know to be a lie.
I think you hit on my point with- "And, by the way, there is a difference between something being false and knowing that something is false. It is the latter that could cause a negative response, not the former. But that's another discussion. "
It is this latter point you mention, "knowing that something is false", that would have caused the uprising and it is the whole foundation of my point.
The Gospels testify to miracles, raising of the dead, 500 witnesses of Jesus rising, 4 or 5 thousand people witnessing miracle of the bread, etc. The point being made is that the 1st century Christians were witnesses to all of it's claims. These people were 1st hand witnesses to the claims of the Gospels and that is why i say that no one would willingly die for a lie.
When Mohammad came out with his revelations, people took him on his word, they didn't have anything to corroborate what he claims to have witnessed. They didn't have a miracle that they all witnessed of any kind. They simply believed in Mohammad's cause. He must have been an amazing leader or/and a great provider of shelter, protection, community, who knows. Bottom line is, he could convince people to fight for his cause. There are many such people in history and most especially, in modern day times. How about Osama, Hitler, Koresh and many others. Some might argue, Bush, but now we're getting off topic.
On the other hand, early Christians did have something to corroborate. They could talk to the 500 people that witnessed the rising or maybe, they were one of the 500 people. They could speak to Lazarus or his family and many of them did see the miracle of the bread and fish. They could seek out the witnessses of the various healing or those healed themselves.
The David Koresh followers would have quickly fallen away if he had claimed miracles that they all witnessed. When they all knew that they had not witnessed any such miracles.
I hope this presents my point a little better.
Take care, John
I also disagree that having conclusive evidence of God would still make us truly free. With this type of evidence I don't think that He'd really be receiving people that have honestly turned their will towards him.
Well it wouldn't make us free, we already are free, are we not? By your description god is or will be receiving people who by geographical accident live in Christian regions, and are willing to believe something that is pretty irrational based on tenuous evidence (so I guess there won't be many scientists in heaven.) It would make some sense if the human race is an experiment and certain types are to be weeded out (although why torture the rejects forever,) however if its a parent-child relationship and god loves his children wouldn't a loving parent want all of his children to be "saved?" The other problem with this rationale is its hard to distinguish between a god that is hiding from critical examination and a god that doesn't exist.
Yes, yes, yes. Absolutely. No debating it. Did you understand my point? My assertion is stronger than yours; it subsumes yours! Therefore, you are adding nothing to my original assertion, which nobody debates: martyrs believe in the cause they die for. However, that an a buck fifty will buy you a cup of coffee. Belief does not imply truth, as we all seem to agree.
John: "The Gospels testify to miracles, raising of the dead, 500 witnesses of Jesus rising, 4 or 5 thousand people witnessing miracle of the bread, etc."
John, John, John... What you are appealing to is stories of witnesses. You know absolutely nothing about the "500 witnesses," because your only source is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (not the gospels). Paul says there were 500 witnesses; or, rather, his epistle does. Who were they? What did they see? How did Paul come to know of them? Why do none of the gospel writers appeal to this amazing fact? Same with the "thousands" of witnesses to the multiplying of bread and fish; that is a story with zero corroboration. It's not even a very original story.
John: "The point being made is that the 1st century Christians were witnesses to all of it's claims."
Yet not one eye witness wrote anything down. We do not even know who the gospel writers were. Their stories appeared a generation after the supposed events, and are strikingly similar to many other older savior stories. All we have comes through the genre of hagiography; no historian of the period mentions Jesus or any of the miracles. The best corroboration you have is Josephus, which appears to be a late interpolation. So, your statement is a gross exaggeration.
John: "These people were 1st hand witnesses to the claims of the Gospels..."
You have stories of witnesses, not witnesses. What if I said that hundreds of people saw a UFO land in my back yard? Would you take that as convincing evidence? I'll bet you would want to know something about those people, would you not? Why do you so eagerly swallow uncorroborated reports in the Bible?
John: "They [the early Christians] could speak to Lazarus or his family and many of them did see the miracle of the bread and fish."
And how do you know this? Can you show me any corroborating evidence that there was a Lazarus, and that he was raised from the dead? I suspect not. You are basing all these claims on the gospel stories which, for some reason, you think are reliable historically. I've already mentioned some of the reasons I think this is unfounded.
By the way, there are many miracle stories surrounding Muhammad's revelations. His dictation of the Koran is itself purportedly a miracle; Muhammad was illiterate, yet the most superlative poetry ever recorded in Arabic sprang from his lips over a period of twenty years (or so the story goes). Also, the Koran is purportedly replete with fulfilled prophecies and scientific evidence of its divine origin. I'll bet you don't believe a word of it, however. I'll bet you would be just as skeptical as we are, and would insist on examining all such claims very critically before accepting them. Why not do the same for the Bible stories?
These dates make the reports very credible to me. And "very", is a gross understatement in my opinion.
I guess we have to agree to disagree, not much else to discuss.
Thanks for letting me post on this site, I wish you all well. John
There is still much debate over the dates. Conservative scholars place the gospel of Mark around 70 AD, shortly after the destruction of the Jewish temple. More liberal scholars place it closer to the end of the first century, or even into the second. But regardless of the date, there is no corroboration of any supernatural event reported in the gospels; indeed, there is scant evidence that there was an actual Jesus behind the legend at all.
"...I'm sure i don't need to mention that Jesus was crucified at 30 AD."
And what evidence do you have for this other than the gospels? None, right? Right. The early epistles don't mention any historical context. Apparently nobody informed Paul that Jesus was a human who lived only decades before he preached. And apparently Paul felt no need to quote Jesus, or to mention his ministry, or his miracles, or the circumstances of his birth or death. Strange, don't you think? Why the silence from a source so close to the supposed events? (Most likely answer: The story was not invented yet.)
John: "These dates make the reports very credible to me. And 'very', is a gross understatement in my opinion."
This is again circular reasoning. Q: How do we "know" the gospels are reliable? A: Because they were written close to the date of the events. Q: How do we know when the events happened? A: The gospels tell us! Without the gospels there would be no Jesus tradition--at least not one based on an earthly Jesus. The author of Mark was apparently the first to fix Jesus in history. All the rest of history combined has so little to say about "Christ" that it would fit on the back of a post card, and none of it is unequivocal; i.e. clearly genuine, and not simply a second-hand report from believers.
I'm sorry to inform you, but your "gross understatement" is almost pure fantasy. Many religions have similar traditions, and believers cling to them just as ardently as you do to the Jesus story. Each one thinks that their story is real.
Okay, John. We agree to disagree.
"...[what these hijackers believed or its 1st Muslims]... is the product of years of brain washing..."
John, please pardon my misattribution of (poster) Thomas' text to you; my creme brulee levels were way down at the time. ;-/
With regard to the above quote, when I think of brainwashing, usually I think of nasty misuse of technology on prisoners and dissidents. What sorts of techniques were the early followers of Mohammed (ptui) able to apply to the hoped-for disciples, out there in the deserts, to win them over to faulty thinking?
I also disagree that having conclusive evidence of God would still make us truly free. With this type of evidence I don't think that He'd really be receiving people that have honestly turned their will towards him.
What I want to know is how can we "honestly" turn our wills toward something that we don't have conclusive evidence for. It seems to me that the only way to honestly turn my will to God would be if he honestly showed up. Conclusive evidence of God's existence doesn't take away my choice, it just makes my choice clear. If God proved his own existence and told me to come with him or fry, then I'd be able to make an honest decision...
John, one question: have you ever been to Jerusalem? I have. its actually a pretty large city. There are tall building and even a 4-square block outdoor mall. Its pretty impressive! And in the middle of it all, there is the "old city" which was the jerusalem that existed up until the cruisades. And that is actually quite small (much smaller than i expected it to be).
So what is the point of this is? If Jesus had appeared to 500 after his ressurection, it would have changed the face of that city forever. You see, 500 people would be quite a high percentage of the people in the city at that time. They would have seen and known that he had risen, and Xianity would have taken off that day. But yet there is absolutely NO historical mention of Jesus even existing at all, let alone performing miracles, getting killed, and then appearing to 500.
I mean, Julius Ceasar didn't wipe his ass without someone writing about it, but yet noone wrote anything about this jesus guy until over 80 years AFTER the fact! sorry dude, I don't buy it.
Sounds like you want conclusive evidence, that doesn't sound like true freedom from God to me? (a.k.a. free will).
John, do you believe in the pre-tribulational rapture? It seems to me that not only would such an event provide conclusive evidence of God's existence, but it would go extremely far in proving the authenticity of the Bible. I'd believe in Jesus again if I saw millions of people vanish into thin air, because that would be the very first prophecy that had ever been conclusively fulfilled.
Wouldn't this event take away my free will to believe in God on my own? His action would basically force me to believe, wouldn't it?
I hope we see more of you, John. It's obvious that you are a thinker, and it's refreshing to see a Christian in here like yourself.
Just because millions of people disappear doesn't mean it was Jesus that did it.
It could also be UFOs that beamed them up.
Actually that would be more believable...
"It could also be UFOs that beamed them up."
Well, if aliens could do that, then we're pretty much screwed anyway, so might as well believe in a fairytale. Besides, it would only be seven more years, then I could go back to being an atheist again. I could live with that.
"Exactly how does someone getting murdered, by being crucified, make me suitable or deserving to go to heaven, and if this is a requirement by God, that does qualify me to pass through the pearly gates, why do I have to believe it."
Well, why not? What else are you going to believe? Let's assume for a moment that it is all true, then why believe anything else? Just because you don't like the idea of believing in a man that bled and died on a cross for your sins and mistakes? It doesn't make sense.
Besides, the point of believing is to enter into 'relationship.' If I didn't believe my parents were actually REAL, i'd ignore them. You've got to believe in Christ to have a relationship with him, else how the heck do you think you're going to be able to pray and speak to him? By praying to Elvis or something?
"If God wanted and needed a sacrifice to himself before he will let anybody into heaven, then when the Romans finished killing Jesus, didn't we all have a ticket to paradise?"
Uh... yes. We do. The ticket is believing in Christ. Last time I checked, you need to TAKE a ticket to use it. Unless you'd like the ticket to magically get to the conductor somehow?
"God supposedly knows which of us will believe it, and those who won't. What has that got to do with the deal? Once he gets his born of a virgin, boy murdered, then he should be happy. A deal is a deal."
He IS happy. Problem is, you haven't made a deal with him. He has started 'negotiations' of reconciliation, so to speak, and you haven't bothered to come with your part. So what deal are you talking about here exactly? Are you wanting him to force it down your throat or something?
"Now I'm not going to ask you to explain how Jesus, and God, and the holy ghost can all three be the same being, or how Jesus knowing he was divine, and immortal could really die, because it would unfairly burden your intellect, so I will stick with the original question."
For starters, where the heck did you get the idea that Jesus was immortal before he died? Maybe you were reading the Unauthorized Misquoted Version of the Bible or something? Secondly, I could tell you that the whole deal with the Trinity is a 'mystery', much like the same way that a man and a woman love each other is a 'mystery' but since you obviously don't like poetry or metaphor or mysteries(because every mystery needs to be answered, by the looks of your post) then I'd have to ask you how come water comes in different forms? Let me guess your answer : It does. Well, guess what? God comes in three different persons. Try and explain first cause to me... your answer? "I dunno." Do you believe in the Big Bang? If so, what caused the big bang? Let me guess? "We don't know." So that's an acceptable answer, hmmm? There are things we know and things we don't. Get over it, no one's going to figure it out because God is unfathomable. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be God, and then he wouldn't be the delight to get to know that he is. A God who can be perfectly explained in textbooks and maths formulas is no God at all. The only guy who knows the answer to your question anyhow is God himself. The same guy who created water in different forms. You're welcome to ask him that question yourself.
I never understand this kind of thing anyway - are you attacking Christian's intellect, or whether or not God is real? All you seem to be doing is attacking Christian's intellect. Anyone can do that.
And since when is life just about intellect? Isn't it also about experience? Of course it is.
"What has my belief got to do with the whole thing? God got what he wanted, so we all should be admitted to heaven! Case closed!"
Firstly, you're assuming that if someone doesn't KNOW about Christ and believing in him, he is going to hell. If you read your Bible it doesn't say that. It says God will judge each person seperately.
But this evades the question - and the question is: YOU DO KNOW this truth and what are YOU going to do about it? If you're going to reject it then you've taken the 'ticket' already given to you and thrown it into the rubbish. You've made your choice, and I don't believe God will just give up on you, but you've got to realise that you've rejected God yourself. So, since you prefer not being around God he might (in his grace) just send you to the place where there is no God - and that place would be a hell of hells. But that's your choice.
Loved your post.
Genesis 6:6 "And it repented the Lord, that he had created a man and a woman."
Genesis 6:1/2 And it is not written anywhere in the Bible that God repented creating Satan
and allowed all evil to exist because humans where such a great threat to God and their Hearts were so wicked, but Satan is so wonderful, but humans need to die, suffer and burn, unless of course you believe in Jesus.
Genesis 6:3/4 Satan being the most beautiful angel in Heaven is God's most favorite piece of work.
Although he kicked Satan out of Heaven, Satan can continue his work for the Lord in deceiving and sending people to hell.
No one in America would be worshipping the Bible-God had Christopher Columbus brought over the Qu'ran. Columbus thought he was going to fall off the face of the earth, he had to have a savior that he could trust and pray to, so it was the Bible God's will that he discovered America and never fell off of the face of the earth.
So this makes the Bible true, because America was founded under Christian principles.
And so now Christianity has had over 500 years to build it's churches and establish the Bible as the one true book of God.
When people are born they soon see and notice all those churches and all the believers flocking to them and so therefore in their minds, this confirms to them, it must certainly be true, they do not tear down any churches, they only build new ones, and hardly no one is standing up against Christianity and opposing the teachings, so therefore it must certainly be true.
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth and it was good....than man messed it all up. You cant blame God for the existence of the negative things in our lives. We did it to ourselves.
But why the hostility and the persistence at disproving God? Who are you answering to that you have to discredit Christianity? In who's name? To what reward? If there's no God, no Heaven and no Hell....then you could just keep your mouth shut until you die. But you devote so much time, time that you know you dont have, (because you know you'll die someday) to websites and publications to try and lead people to nothingness. If nothing is out there, what are you trying to persuade men to? You sound like foolish Generals of an army that has no objective. Leading men into the wilderness with no enemy, and no purpose. For what? No atheist has ever been able to answer me that...I doubt anyone on this mindless site will be able to either. The crickets have stopped chirping...I am a CHRISTIAN.
I am a Christian, so dont take this wrong....atheists dont care about our attempts to re-credit Christ in their lives, KEEP THEM COMING ANYWAY!
But to the ATHIESTS:
What are you wasting your time and energy on if there is "nothing out there"? Why have a site at all? Why publish books? Why be hostile towards people who know Christ? Sounds like you need lives, and I know just the person who can give you one!
I doubt you are a Marine, but speaking of advanced reconnaissance, how does a Christian scout invisible objects in order to prepare for the spiritual battle-field?
First of all, I think there is plenty "out there," although I have never seen any credible evidence that it includes invisible conscious entities of any description. As for spending time here, we each have our reasons. I personally have a few. For one thing, I find it interesting discussing theology with people whose ideas are radically different from my own, and I try my best to understand why they believe what they believe. But I also have something of an agenda: I feel that there is a great deal of bigotry shown toward non-believers, particularly in the US, and I would like to see that change. We see a lot of blatant bigotry toward non-believers of all stripes right here. I think it's sad that so many believers disparage non-believers--often it's out of ignorance. I do my best to combat it when I see it.
noname: "Why have a site at all?"
Look in the upper right-hand corner of any page at this site. See the link labeled "Site Purpose and Legal Disclaimer". You might want to start be reading that.
noname: "Why publish books?"
Many reasons. I suggest you ask each individual author. For some, it's an attempt to help others who may be trapped in unhealthy belief systems. For others, it's an attempt to head off the inevitable conflicts caused by conflicting religious dogmas (e.g. Christianity and Islam). For still others it's an intellectual exercise and/or an opportunity to demonstrate and encourage critical thinking.
noname: "Why be hostile towards people who know Christ?"
I'm not hostile to Christians, at least not for their beliefs. If they are antagonistic when they visit this site, then I have a tendency to be not-so-friendly in return. As for people who "know Christ," I am skeptical that anybody fits this description; at least I have seen nothing even that I would consider to be even mildly compelling evidence that such a person exists.
noname: "Sounds like you need lives, and I know just the person who can give you one!"
Thanks for the kind offer, but I think you must have us confused with somebody else. I and others here happen to have very productive and fulfilling lives. Why would you think otherwise? I hope it's not simply because our theological opinions do not match your own.
Chirp chirp!
It was too late for that when you showed up and started spouting nonsense at us.
But to the ATHIESTS:
The proper spelling is atheists.
What are you wasting your time and energy on if there is "nothing out there"?
Because many of the people who think that there *is* something out there... People like you, sir or madam... Come here to threaten, insult and generally annoy us.
If your idea of faith is to quietly pray in the privacy of your own home, I have no problem with that.
But there are those who indoctrinate and terrorize their own and others' children with tales of some mythical Hell; who come up to my door to preach at me; who interfere in the running of governments and the creation and maintenance of laws.
People who believe that the world was created by some invisible, silent, intangible being who wants us to follow the rules in one particular and rather idiotic book.
People who believe that a god who supposedly flooded an entire planet is the epitome of goodness.
For you I have no sympathy and no mercy. I take great pleasure in seeing you finally "get it"... When you use the brain that no god gave you, see through the bullshit, and walk away from the illusionary "relationship" that existed only in your own mind.
Can we start with something a little more basic? Can you please explain to me what God/Jesus sacrificed on the cross? (Mind you, I think the entire passion scene is nothing more than midrashic interpolation, lifted straight from the pages of the OT, but for the sake of argument let's assume it was authentic.) After all, you do believe that Jesus is still alive, do you not? You believe that he rose bodily into heaven, right? So, if he is still alive, seated at the right hand of god, what exactly was sacrificed?
If an animal were sacrificed on an alter (as god once desired, apparently), and it came back to life, it would be considered a botched sacrifice, would it not? Even more so if the animal "knew" in advance that the arrangement was a temporary inconvenience, and it would soon be alive again, frolicking in the most beautiful and perfect pasture imaginable.
So, wouldn't the word "relocation" be more apt than "sacrifice"? (We can get to the absurdity of atonement by proxy later if you wish.)