Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 2 minutes ago, the fox said: In Christianity, does God have a God? Multiple Gods, sacrifice by blood, god becoming human. That has no link to monotheism. What overwhelming evidence? Jesus prayed in the bible to not be crucified, and if his prayers weren't answered, than what chance does normal people have. No he didn't, he said if it is possible, let this chalice pass but let your will be done. The chalice refers to the cup of God's wrath. This cup is prophesied to be poured out on the people throughout the old testament, because God hates sin. Jesus realised that he was there to drink the cup, in other words to take the burden of sin from man ontto himself. That is what the cross is, our redemption and liberty from sin through, christ Jesus. Bare with me on crucifixion evidence, there is so much it will take me a bit of time to select the most appropriate for this coversatiion.
yorkie1999 Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 1 minute ago, Benguin said: Yes but you're asserting Christianity was created to control people, for that to be the case you would need to be able to demonstrate, that those who created it, controlled people. Are you able to do that? No i'm not, i'm saying religion was created to control people. Christianity isn't the only religion and it certainly wasn't the first.
Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 3 minutes ago, RumbleFox said: I just don’t see that a resurrection can ever be described as the “simplest and most likely” explanation to anything. It is a miracle, by its very nature not simple or likely surely? Anyhoo, we can agree to disagree I suppose. Well miracles exist in a theistic worldview so that's how I can readily believe it. The arguments for God's existence (any god) are convincing to me and that leads me to deism once there I'm no longer bound by the fact that miracles don't happen in an atheistic worldview. 1
Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 3 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said: No i'm not, i'm saying religion was created to control people. Christianity isn't the only religion and it certainly wasn't the first. OK good I'm glad we agree christianity wasn't created to control people.
yorkie1999 Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 2 minutes ago, Benguin said: OK good I'm glad we agree christianity wasn't created to control people. Is Christianity not a religion then?
HighPeakFox Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 "And another thing I won't discuss is religion It always causes a fight..."
Guest the fox Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 3 minutes ago, Benguin said: No he didn't, he said if it is possible, let this chalice pass but let your will be done. The chalice refers to the cup of God's wrath. This cup is prophesied to be poured out on the people throughout the old testament, because God hates sin. Jesus realised that he was there to drink the cup, in other words to take the burden of sin from man ontto himself. That is what the cross is, our redemption and liberty from sin through, christ Jesus. Bare with me on crucifixion evidence, there is so much it will take me a bit of time to select the most appropriate for this coversatiion. He prayed, he went down on his knees and put his forehead on the ground. The cup is the crucifixion because he didn't want to be crucified. (according to the Bible of course). The argument for or against the Crucifixion and resurrection are countless on the internet. Seeing that the Bible's source aren't reliable and even differ on what happened when people went to see the grave, it's hard to take the Bible as a credible source seeing all the changes and contradictions.
Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 1 minute ago, the fox said: He prayed, he went down on his knees and put his forehead on the ground. The cup is the crucifixion because he didn't want to be crucified. (according to the Bible of course). The argument for or against the Crucifixion and resurrection are countless on the internet. Seeing that the Bible's source aren't reliable and even differ on what happened when people went to see the grave, it's hard to take the Bible as a credible source seeing all the changes and contradictions. How are you able to believe anything about Jesus, with this approach? As far as I understand it, Islam teaches that Jesus is a prophet who did not die but ascended to heaven. Yet the only sources you can use for these are the same sources that you dispute? Where the basic facts about jesus are concerned though, there are independant sources in tacitus and Josephesus. The only indeoendant sources to support an Islamic view of Jesus are from 6 centuries after his life, so there absolutely isn't any eye witnesses or historical data. I think we can either accept the basic facts about jesus from 1st century sources or disregard them entirely but we can't create a new version of Jesus that isn't supported by any historically reliable sources. I personally see an atheistic worldview on Jesus as more compelling than an Islamic one.
Guest the fox Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Benguin said: How are you able to believe anything about Jesus, with this approach? As far as I understand it, Islam teaches that Jesus is a prophet who did not die but ascended to heaven. Yet the only sources you can use for these are the same sources that you dispute? Where the basic facts about jesus are concerned though, there are independant sources in tacitus and Josephesus. The only indeoendant sources to support an Islamic view of Jesus are from 6 centuries after his life, so there absolutely isn't any eye witnesses or historical data. I think we can either accept the basic facts about jesus from 1st century sources or disregard them entirely but we can't create a new version of Jesus that isn't supported by any historically reliable sources. I personally see an atheistic worldview on Jesus as more compelling than an Islamic one. Is this discussion going anywhere? You didn't answer my question about "does god have a god", didn't answer my questions about why are the teachings of Jesus different from what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul taught. Why did the concept of Trinity suddenly became a thing in the 4th century... And so on. I have my source from the Qur'an. I've posted verses from the bible because that's what you believe in. And those verses show contradictions Who had the writings if Josephesus? And could those writings be changed. Who are the eye witness? They are not named. We don't know who wrote the gospels apart from their names (if those were their real names) The reliability of the gospels are almost nonexistent do to the reasons I pointed out above. And that's your opinion. If you look at all those things that I mentioned before and you are still convinced of what you believe in then I don't see were the point of having a discussion have a nice day. Edited 20 July 2020 by the fox
Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 I think it's important to throw this into the thread too. Christianity shouldn't be viewed simply as an appealing thing. Sure there is reward in the community it brings but serving Jesus is costly. Fortunatley for a westerner, the cost is nothing more than being mocked but for a lot of people it is genuine persecution and violence. God loves us all and wants a relationship with us but will not force us to follow us. I believe the biggest reason for unbelief to be volitional rather than intellectual. When most atheists are asked if they would become a Christian if they had proof it was true, they say no. People want to live according to their own desires, few are ready and willing to pick up their cross and follow Jesus, even if he appeared before them. My prayer is that people are able to see beyond their desires when the gospel is presented to them, as whilst costly, following Jesus is the best thing!
Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 9 minutes ago, the fox said: Is this discussion going anywhere? You didn't answer my question about "does god have a god", didn't answer my questions about why are the teachings of Jesus different from what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul taught. Why did the concept of Trinity suddenly became a thing in the 4th century... And so on. I have my source from the Qur'an. I've posted verses from the bible because that's what you believe in. And those verses show contributions. Who had the writings if Josephesus? And could those writings be changed. Who are the eye witness? They are not named. We don't know who wrote the gospels apart from their names (if those were their real names) The reliability of the gospels are almost nonexistent do to the reasons I pointed out above. And that's your opinion. If you look at all those things that I mentioned before and you are still convinced of what you believe in then I don't see were the point of having a discussion about it. You have your religion and I have mine, have a nice day. The reason I haven't answered is because you are saying Paul and the Gospels are unreliable. If they are unreliable then that takes all possible versions of Jesus off the cards, not just the Christian perspective, yet you believe in Jesus. So I'm far more interested in how you can believe in a version of Jesus whilst simultaneously rejecting the validity of all accounts of him?
Guest the fox Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 2 minutes ago, Benguin said: The reason I haven't answered is because you are saying Paul and the Gospels are unreliable. If they are unreliable then that takes all possible versions of Jesus off the cards, not just the Christian perspective, yet you believe in Jesus. So I'm far more interested in how you can believe in a version of Jesus whilst simultaneously rejecting the validity of all accounts of him? The Gospols are unreliable. We don't know who wrote them or who are the eyewitness. There are verses that are added and also contradictions. Never said that Jesus didn't exist, I said that the Bible is unreliable do to overwhelming reasons. Rejecting the way the new testament portrays him doesn't mean to Reject that Jesus existed. Like I said, if you are content with believing in the Bible despite the things that I've mentioned, than it's your choice and it is your religion.
Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 1 minute ago, the fox said: The Gospols are unreliable. We don't know who wrote them or who are the eyewitness. There are verses that are added and also contradictions. Never said that Jesus didn't exist, I said that the Bible is unreliable do to overwhelming reasons. Rejecting the way the new testament portrays him doesn't mean to Reject that Jesus existed. Like I said, if you are content with believing in the Bible despite the things that I've mentioned, than it's your choice and it is your religion. What sources do you use to determine an Islamic version of Jesus, if not the Bible? Definitley and even though I disagree I respect your beliefs.
Vacamion Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 7 minutes ago, Benguin said: few are ready and willing to pick up their cross and follow Jesus, even if he appeared before them. If the big J appeared today, no one would recognise the stuff he was said to have done as being divine - David Blaine can make stuff appear. Cult Leaders have charisma and followers. Even the resurrection of Lazarus would be accused of fakery or trickery. Which brings me to a question that has always troubled me about a cosmic overlord who "moves in mysterious ways" - why would a Deity (and/or his appointed agent) be coy about his or her divinity? If you can create 100 billion galaxies and reign for 13.7 billion years, you would be able to display or perhaps to will into existence some incontrovertible proof of your divinity and then you could lead everyone to the promised land. A cross on the Moon. A mountain range in the shape of a mathematical formula. The Ten Commandments written microspically on cell membranes or in DNA. A prediction of something really complicated that comes to pass years in the future. Instead, there is doubt. Seers, High Priests and Elders have to interpret what happens and the Creator doesnt reveal him or herself to the masses. What gives? 1
Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Vacamion said: If the big J appeared today, no one would recognise the stuff he was said to have done as being divine - David Blaine can make stuff appear. Cult Leaders have charisma and followers. Even the resurrection of Lazarus would be accused of fakery or trickery. Which brings me to a question that has always troubled me about a cosmic overlord who "moves in mysterious ways" - why would a Deity (and/or his appointed agent) be coy about his or her divinity? If you can create 100 billion galaxies and reign for 13.7 billion years, you would be able to display or perhaps to will into existence some incontrovertible proof of your divinity and then you could lead everyone to the promised land. A cross on the Moon. A mountain range in the shape of a mathematical formula. The Ten Commandments written microspically on cell membranes or in DNA. A prediction of something really complicated that comes to pass years in the future. Instead, there is doubt. Seers, High Priests and Elders have to interpret what happens and the Creator doesnt reveal him or herself to the masses. What gives? This is actually the point I was trying to make. God didn't create us to be robots, we are free beings with our own volition. God loves us and wants a relationship with us but loves us too much to force us into his presence. I like Frank Turek's analogy here. If a man loved a woman, he'd let it be known through things like a love note etc in the same way God has given us Scripture if though the woman did not love the man back, would the man truly love her by forcing himself upon her? No. Neither will God. Romans says we will all be without excuse, so whether God has already revealed himself to you, or whether that is yet to come in your life, on the day of Judgement answers like "there wasn't enough evidence" will not carry any weight. We will all hear the gospel and either accept it or reject it. Edited 20 July 2020 by Benguin
Raj Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 I'm keeping well away from this thread...it'll only end in tears..... 3
Vacamion Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 2 minutes ago, Benguin said: This is actually the point I was trying to make. God didn't create us to be robots, we are free beings with our own volition. God loves us and wants a relationship with us but loves us too much to force us into his presence. I like Frank Turek's analogy here. If a man loved a woman, he'd let it be known through things like a love note etc in the same way God has given us Scripture if though the woman did not love the man back, would the man truly love her by forcing himself upon her? No. Neither will God. Romans says we will all be without excuse, so whether God has already revealed himself to you, or whether that is yet to come in your life, on the day of Judgement answers like "there wasn't enough evidence" will not carry any weight. We will all hear the gospel and either accept it or reject it. I dont believe in heaven or hell or judgement and so I'm gambling that I need to take no action about it. I'm doing a reverse Pascal's wager. A kind of Pascal's Betfair if you will.
Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 @Rain King you laugh at almost all of my posts but haven't seen you respond. Absolutely fair enough and you don't need to respond but would love to hear your thoughts.
Guest Electric Yetis Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 Just now, Benguin said: @Rain King you laugh at almost all of my posts but haven't seen you respond. Absolutely fair enough and you don't need to respond but would love to hear your thoughts. My thoughts are summed up far more eloquently by @RumbleFox Apologies if you find the laughing personal, it's not intended that way. I just find religion as a whole absurd and laughable and having a family member who is devoutly Christian and being brought up having to go to Sunday School for many years I've listened to the theories many times and can't see how anybody could actually believe it. But I mean you no harm and I'm impressed by your conviction.
Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 1 minute ago, Vacamion said: I dont believe in heaven or hell or judgement and so I'm gambling that I need to take no action about it. I'm doing a reverse Pascal's wager. A kind of Pascal's Betfair if you will. I don't think so personally no. I think the following two options apply to the unbeliever: 1. They have not yet had the truth revealed to them. 2. They have but have rejected it. If there is a third option then Christianity is not true. On the first point I was a devout athiest for most of my life and when I think about it, I was not rejecting God but simply didn't believe it. Given that the Bible says we will be without excuse, it stands to reason then that it might be that the truth simply hasn't been revealed yet to an unbeliever. I would encourage anyone who doesn't believe to examine themselves and decide if they are rejecting it or they truly don't believe, if it is genuinely the latter then I have faith that will change before judgement.
Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 2 minutes ago, Rain King said: My thoughts are summed up far more eloquently by @RumbleFox Apologies if you find the laughing personal, it's not intended that way. I just find religion as a whole absurd and laughable and having a family member who is devoutly Christian and being brought up having to go to Sunday School for many years I've listened to the theories many times and can't see how anybody could actually believe it. But I mean you no harm and I'm impressed by your conviction. No not taking it personaly at all, I just got the sense you are interested in the topic but hadn't seen you post, so was curious. Whilst I disagree, I respect your opinion.
Vacamion Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 4 minutes ago, Benguin said: I don't think so personally no. I think the following two options apply to the unbeliever: 1. They have not yet had the truth revealed to them. 2. They have but have rejected it. If there is a third option then Christianity is not true. On the first point I was a devout athiest for most of my life and when I think about it, I was not rejecting God but simply didn't believe it. Given that the Bible says we will be without excuse, it stands to reason then that it might be that the truth simply hasn't been revealed yet to an unbeliever. I would encourage anyone who doesn't believe to examine themselves and decide if they are rejecting it or they truly don't believe, if it is genuinely the latter then I have faith that will change before judgement. I've read quite a bit on this and I reject it all. An eternity in Hell for me it is, then. Nice to get away to somewhere warm, for a change. Enjoy heaven. I say this with very best wishes to you, if this is what you believe. I just hope you can accept that some of us won't be convinced, and can be happy with our decision and the consequences (which we also don't believe).
Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 2 minutes ago, Vacamion said: I've read quite a bit on this and I reject it all. An eternity in Hell for me it is, then. Nice to get away to somewhere warm, for a change. Enjoy heaven. I say this with very best wishes to you, if this is what you believe. I just hope you can accept that some of us won't be convinced, and can be happy with our decision and the consequences (which we also don't believe). This is the problem, your last point can only be accepted in a Christian worldview if one subscribes to the doctrine of election. I don't subscribe to that doctrine and therfore can only believe that God has not yet revealed himself to you if you want to believe but do not believe If of course your answer to the question: would you become a Christian if you had undeniable proof? Is no, then this is neither here nor there.
brucey Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 My view: It is impossible for anyone to prove 100% whether or not there is a Creator. If there is a Creator: - It is impossible to know which of the thousands of religions throughout history has contained the ‘correct’ Creator. - It is just as likely, if not more likely, given the infinite permutations, that none of the religions has worshipped the ‘correct’ Creator. - If the Creator is a vengeful one (one that does punishment / Hell etc - which applies to a significant proportion of religions), they may more severely punish individuals who picked the wrong religion and worshipped a ‘false God’, than individuals who were non-religious and did not worship anyone. - If the Creator is not a vengeful one, it doesn’t matter. If there is no Creator: - It doesn’t matter. My interpretation of Pascal’s wager says to me that it is safer to not worship any Creator as long as I do not know which is for certain the 100% correct one. 1
Benguin Posted 20 July 2020 Posted 20 July 2020 22 minutes ago, brucey said: My view: It is impossible for anyone to prove 100% whether or not there is a Creator. If there is a Creator: - It is impossible to know which of the thousands of religions throughout history has contained the ‘correct’ Creator. - It is just as likely, if not more likely, given the infinite permutations, that none of the religions has worshipped the ‘correct’ Creator. - If the Creator is a vengeful one (one that does punishment / Hell etc - which applies to a significant proportion of religions), they may more severely punish individuals who picked the wrong religion and worshipped a ‘false God’, than individuals who were non-religious and did not worship anyone. - If the Creator is not a vengeful one, it doesn’t matter. If there is no Creator: - It doesn’t matter. My interpretation of Pascal’s wager says to me that it is safer to not worship any Creator as long as I do not know which is for certain the 100% correct one. This is very similar argument to the argument of historical induction. Even if every known religion was 100% falsifiable, nothing has been argued against the existence of a diety. After all it might be the case that a creator made the universe but has not revealed himself in the form of any religion. That said, I am a Christian so am obliged to defend Christianity rather than a generic diety. Of the thousands of alleged religions, it is only really a handfull that are not falsifiable and have any real following. After all if God exists in a personal sense, we would expect the correct religion to have a somewhat large following. Of those handfull of religions, Christianity is by far the most compelling as we have lots of historical facts that are best explained by the resurrection. In all religions that have even a shred of evidence, Christianity is about a relationship with God. In most others it is about outweighing your good with evil, karma etc. I think this allows us to draw a distinction from other religions. I also think its Important to draw a distinction from what you described and what Hell actually is in my worldview. Hell is separation from God, Christianity preaches that we have free will to choose to trust in Jesus or reject him. Since God loves us, he will not force us into his presence against our will, so those who have rejected him are granted their desires to be apart from him. Pascal's wager is rubish. No one should bet on God. If one wants to live by their spirit God will reveal himself. If one wants to live by their flesh, God will not stop them.
Recommended Posts