Lets try figure things out together and maybe you can be convince. What exactly bothers you of the Christian faith? What exactly will you like a prove for to believe in the Christian faith? Waiting to hear you guys out!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Pretty much everything, it's claim of divinity without evidence, from virgin birth to resurrection. So what would help me be convinced is to provide evidence for the various biblical claims of divinity.
I will use Lee Strobel's argument in "The Evidence of God". Lee Strobel is a former atheist who makes the scientific case for a creator. Possibility #1 Darwin. "Looking at the doctrine of Darwinism, which under girded my atheism for so many years, it didn't take me long to conclude that it was simply too far fetched to be credible. I would have to believe that:
-Nothing produces everything
-Non-life produces life
-Randomness produces fine tuning
-Chaos produces information
-Unconsciousness produces consciousness
-Non-reason produces reason Based on this, I was forced to conclude that Darwinism would require a blind leap of faith
that I was not willing to make. The central pillars of evolutionary theory quickly rotted away when exposed to scrutiny. For example, naturalistic processes have utterly failed to explain how non living chemicals could somehow self assemble into the first living cell.
In addition, the overall fossil record has stubbornly refused to confirm the grand claim of Darwinian transitions. The majority - or, according to some experts, all of the world's forty phyla, the highest in the animal kingdom, virtually sprang forth with unique body plans more than five hundred million years ago. The sudden appearance of these radically new life forms, devoid of prior transitions, has turned Darwin's Tree of life on its head.
Possibility #2 Design
One has to consider many different issues and see whether they point toward or away from the existence of an intelligent designer. Consider some evidence that was adduced in my investigation:
The Evidence of Cosmology:
As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple yet elegant: First, whatever begins to exist has a cause...second, the universe had a beginning...therefore, the universe has a cause. Even once agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow conceded the essential elements of Christianity and modern cosmology are the same: "The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply..."
The Evidence of Physics:
one of the most striking discoveries of modern science has been that the laws and constants of physics unexpectedly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life. Also, In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.
Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life.
The Evidence of Biological Information:
The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four letter chemical alphabet that spells out precisely assembled instructions for all the proteins from which are bodies are made. Whenever we find a sequential arrangement that's complex and corresponds to an independent pattern (books, computer code, DNA), this kind of information always implies an intelligent source.
The Evidence of Consciousness:
Many scientists are concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain our experience of consciousness. Professor J.P. Moreland defined consciousness as our introspection , sensations, thoughts, emotions, etc. that make us alive and aware. He said "You can't get something from nothing." If the universe began with dead matter having no conscious, "How then, do you get something totally different-conscious,living,thinking,feeling creatures-from materials that don't have that?"
These are some evidences of Intelligent design, there are more, I just put a few out there. Faith is a reasonable step once the evidence is pointed in the right direction. Faith goes beyond merely acknowledging that the facts of science and history point toward God. Faith is responding to those facts by investing trust in God-When we decide to not merely ponder the concept of a designer but to embrace Him as our own and make Him our "true God" then we can meet him personally, relate to him daily, and spend eternity with him as he promises.
if you are a spiritual skeptic or seeker, I hope you'll resolve to investigate the evidence yourself and then respond accordingly;
First, Is there a God who created the universe? Yes
Second, Did God reveal himself to Humankind through the Bible? Yes
Third, Is Jesus the Son of God and can He help me? Yes
I recommend a book you can buy online at amazon that will you in your journey called "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Lee was an atheist and did an investigative case to search for the truth whether this stuff was true or not. I recommend it to you. Get it!
OK kjfish .....
I can see that you think your "on a roll" here.....
But....... just a couple of points .....
First ...you claim to have been an atheist ........ and yet........you refer to "Darwinism".....
Where a real atheist would refer to Darwins Theory ....or Evolution .... or almost anything except "Darwinism"....it is a label almost exclusively used by creationists.....
So I call bullshit on your post.......
Secondly ..........you are "necro posting".... this thread had been dead since June 2013......
The last active post in the original thread was posted by Sammi Shazam...... who has not posted here since December 2014..
samking009....who started the thread has not posted since May 2013 .....
Why Charvak and the rest chose to resurrect this thread as opposed to starting a fresh discussion I'm not sure... but that is their business ....... it is ,afterall an atheist website and they can do as they please .....
however your own attempts to piggy back your prosletyzing onto a long defunct thread seem to smack of desperation.....
Also ....your post ,referencing as it does Hoyle ,Lane-Craig and Strobel and the final idiocy ,citing the Bible ,hardly merits a response........
truly you are flogging a dead horse.
kjfish,
Am I supposed to be impressed by this slop? Lee Strobel was a newspaperman with a degree in law, another one of those pathetic, anti-evolution ignoramuses harboring a pretense of scientific competence. I'll supply some brief comments since you went to the trouble to make a long post. My comments will be [[inside]].
will use Lee Strobel's argument in "The Evidence of God". Lee Strobel is a former atheist who makes the scientific case for a creator. Possibility #1 Darwin. "Looking at the doctrine of Darwinism, which under girded my atheism for so many years, it didn't take me long to conclude that it was simply too far fetched to be credible. [[What are your credentials that allow you to make sound judgments about a very subtle area of science?]] I would have to believe that:
-Nothing produces everything [[strawman]]
-Non-life produces life [[strawman; under some conditions matter can give rise to life.]]
-Randomness produces fine tuning [[explain yourself! the fine tuning argument itself is no good]]
-Chaos produces information [[strawman--a naive oversimplification]]
-Unconsciousness produces consciousness [[strawman--under some conditions consciousness can arise]]
-Non-reason produces reason [[Confused reasoning. "Non-reason is not a producer of anything. Thinking minds, however, can evolve from matter under the right conditions.]] Based on this, I was forced to conclude that Darwinism would require a blind leap of faith that I was not willing to make. The central pillars of evolutionary theory quickly rotted away when exposed to scrutiny. [[Hog wash!]] For example, naturalistic processes have utterly failed to explain how non living chemicals could somehow self assemble into the first living cell. [[naive. abiogenesis is a young science, but it has already made impressive progress. By what crystal ball are you claiming that in the next 50 years no solution will be at hand?]]
In addition, the overall fossil record has stubbornly refused to confirm the grand claim of Darwinian transitions. [[Try punctuated equilibrium]] The majority - or, according to some experts, all of the world's forty phyla, the highest in the animal kingdom, virtually sprang forth with unique body plans more than five hundred million years ago. The sudden appearance of these radically new life forms, devoid of prior transitions, has turned Darwin's Tree of life on its head. [[Horse manure! Also, some transitional forms are known]]
Possibility #2 Design
One has to consider many different issues and see whether they point toward or away from the existence of an intelligent designer. Consider some evidence that was adduced in my investigation:
The Evidence of Cosmology:
As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple yet elegant: First, whatever begins to exist has a cause...second, the universe had a beginning...therefore, the universe has a cause. [[If we live in a multiverse, as at least one Nobel Laureate has concluded, then you can say nothing about whether the universe (multiverse) has an origin]] Even once agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow conceded the essential elements of Christianity and modern cosmology are the same: "The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply..." [[The hominid family (old definition) goes back about 7 million years. Man did not arrive suddenly and sharply.]]
The Evidence of Physics:
one of the most striking discoveries of modern science has been that the laws and constants of physics unexpectedly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life. [[Most of the universe, by far, is hostile to life as we know it.]] Also, In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. [[Does it give significant support? Many people disagree.]] The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. [[Vastly overstated. Please give us a list of these scientists who have concluded such.]] British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” [[Hoyle is an odd fellow to quote. Show us that most scientists feel this way.]]
One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars. [[These kinds of statements need to be understood in their full context. It's easy to draw false conclusions from snippets. Such arguments have not convinced physicists in general of some divine pull.]]
Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life. [[These kinds of statements need to be understood in their full context. It's easy to draw false conclusions from snippets. Such arguments have not convinced physicists in general of some divine pull.]]
The Evidence of Biological Information:
The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four letter chemical alphabet that spells out precisely assembled instructions for all the proteins from which are bodies are made. Whenever we find a sequential arrangement that's complex and corresponds to an independent pattern (books, computer code, DNA), this kind of information always implies an intelligent source. [[DNA also contains tons of junk. Comparative studies of DNA also traces out the "tree" of evolution. Any two species on that tree (of which man is one) can, in principle, be traced back to a common ancestor. Now, that's a funny design if each species was crafted by a tidy engineer!]
The Evidence of Consciousness:
Many scientists are concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain our experience of consciousness. [[Horse manure!]] Professor J.P. Moreland defined consciousness as our introspection , sensations, thoughts, emotions, etc. that make us alive and aware. He said "You can't get something from nothing." If the universe began with dead matter having no conscious, "How then, do you get something totally different-conscious,living,thinking,feeling creatures-from materials that don't have that?" [[How can light come from non-light? How can the color red come from two things that are non-red? How can a cubic shape come from something that is non-cubic? Consciousness is an emergent property and probably arises with sufficient complexity in the brain. Why can't conscious arise from non-consciousness? The form of that argument is garbage as demonstrated here.]]
These are some evidences of Intelligent design [[Really? I don't buy that.]], there are more, I just put a few out there. Faith is a reasonable step once the evidence is pointed in the right direction. [[Religious faith is belief without or contrary to evidence; are you talking about scientific faith, faith rooted in past experience?]] Faith goes beyond merely acknowledging that the facts of science and history point toward God. Faith is responding to those facts by investing trust in God-When we decide to not merely ponder the concept of a designer but to embrace Him as our own and make Him our "true God" then we can meet him personally, relate to him daily, and spend eternity with him as he promises. [[I guess you are talking about religious faith. I see no value (and much harm) in belief without evidence or, worse, belief contrary to evidence.]]
if you are a spiritual skeptic or seeker, I hope you'll resolve to investigate the evidence yourself and then respond accordingly; [[I have done a lot of investigating, both scientific and religious.]]
First, Is there a God who created the universe? Yes [[Mere opinion and worse as the nature of God does not fit with what we know best about the real world.]]
Second, Did God reveal himself to Humankind through the Bible? Yes [[If the Bible is God's book, then he should have hired a writer. It is full of errors and sloppiness.]]
Third, Is Jesus the Son of God and can He help me? Yes [[Modern mythology]]
I recommend a book you can buy online at amazon that will you in your journey called "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Lee was an atheist and did an investigative case to search for the truth whether this stuff was true or not. I recommend it to you. Get it! [[I actually bought a book by Lee Strobel, probably one of his books "proving" God's existence. It was no more convincing that the stuff you present here, only it went into the full details. I think the book eventually got purged when I needed space.]]
1) you haven't refuted anything. You can't say just because something seems organized that intelligence created it, let alone a god that you failed to prove.
2) DNA proves evolution. It's been a fact since they sequenced DNA.
Next Strobel was never an atheist. He only claimed he was a former atheist after...wait for it....he wrote and wanted to sell a christian book.
His book that you refer to is one sided. All the so called facts are offered in interviews with CHRISTIANS, not scientist. He and you make straw man arguments not worthy of dispelling as they have no merit on their own.
So either prove that there is a god, and then prove that god did something or just shut the fuck up.
Evolution is a fact. DNA proves it. You can't get around that glaring fact. It has been exhaustively and independently tested and the exact same result occurs.
What "bothers" me about christianity?
Mostly its corrupt moral system. The threat of hell by a "loving" god. That sounds more like the abusive father... "Love me or I'll kill you." than a loving deity.
What would it take?
Evidence.
Samking009:
The fact that you would even have to ask us how to convince us of what you beleiev in, should be enough to raise questions to yourself. I dont want to be rude, but if you cant offer a good convicing way to turn us into believers, you are only making it seem like your beliefs hold nothing solid enough for you not to have to ask that.
I truly dont want to offend you, just giving you my opinion.
I dont think the correct approach to convince people of something is to seem like you have no idea why you believe it yourself.
There is nothing you nor anyone can do to convince me to become a believer. I will not believe in anything, I require empirical evidence to adjust my woldview. If you were to provide empirical evidence of god, however, I would still not be a believer, because I would have evidence of its existence.
If a person already strongly believes in something, you would never convince him or her that what he or she believes in is not true. I don't see having different beliefs as a problem. You just have to respect the beliefs of other people and as long as they aren't bothering you, then just let them be.
That is why evidence is key. There is no potential for reaching a conclusion to a dispute when debating beliefs. Each person can have their own beliefs with no medium for validation, which is partly why we have over 30 thousand denominations of Christianity alone.
Belief is dangerous because there are no rules to reach consensus; not saying it cannot happen, only that there is no "win condition." If I believe there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster who created everything and you believe the Christian God created everything, there are no rules that allow for one of our positions to be the victor. Really the only arguments we have is that "I really, really believe it's true."
The reason we have evidence is so that multiple people can agree on a single issue because there is provable premises to these positions. Thus when scientists, lawyers, etc debate a problem they bring in evidence to prove their claims. You wouldn't want a prosecutor to say, "I truly believe him to be guilty," and it hold any weight in a verdict.
When I was a Christian I'm not really bothered if there are non-believers on my surroundings. What bothers me that time is how other believers like me act as good lambs inside the church and return into a hypocrite wolves in the real life. I'm pertaining to Christians who just uses there religion just to show that they are moral and kind but in fact they aren't. That really bothered me until I decided to leave Christianity.
I know that other Christians would say that in faith we must not look what other people are doing as long as we have faith in God that our religions teach about. But religions are made of people so it will be impractical if we disregard what we notice about other members of our religions because people made up their religions.
Well, for starters, it's untrue.
Then, there's everything else.
Not trying to be too blunt, but I highly doubt that you'll succeed in converting anyone here... partially because a system that relies of belief alone and is driven by people struggling to convince non-believers just sounds fundamentally fishy.
Its pretty easy actually to convince us. All that you need to do is have your God address us, maybe on an open forum covered by any international media outlet and after we have dialogued with him/her/it (sorry I don't mean to be rude, its just I am considering all forms of a god here) and tested their identity, we would all definitely be convinced.
Wow you want me to be a believer. Why on earth would you be even remotely concerned about what I believe? The fact is that you have a kernel of questioning your own faith, and project that question on others. Classic psychology. I don't need a god. I am not remotely interested in a god. All I want is for you believers to quit imposing your god on me and others. Even if you believe in your god, you shouldn't be imposing your bullshit on everyone else according to your own bible.
The onus of proof of a god is on those who made up their god, so get off your collective asses and do so or just shut the fuck up.
Don't come here and ask what it would take to convince people to believe in your god. That is like asking what kind of bullshit do you want to hear. You know what it takes for something to be a fact. You and every believer ignore their fundamental responsibility of producing REAL facts, not bullshit.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html
The fundamental question is to ask an apologist how he rationalizes Christianity as the only true religion in the absence of any archeological proof for its claims. On every level it reveals itself as an ongoing internal conflict, if the bible is to be accepted as a credible proof, and an acceptance of misdeeds and amoral acts by the god it centers itself upon. We expect polemicists to explain in terms of one-sided interpretations the content of the bible and its myriad inconsistencies, false claims of fulfilled prophecies, false claims of no unfulfilled prophecies, its disparities between the gospel writers about events, the false claims about witnesses of the crucifixion and a whole host of derisive and amoral acts condoned within its pages that preachers would not reveal to their enemies much less their followers.
Prior to all that, though, it would seem that Paul (nee Saul) who, seeking a god's acceptance for his sexual orientation, found the so-called benevolent god of the nazarene, single-handedly resurrected it from obscurity and promoted it to relieve himself of his own suffering. In that objective pursuit, he created the Jesus and god myth simultaneously from the Hebrew story of a Righteous One, a heretic, they stoned 150 years earlier known as Yeishua ha-Notzri (Jesus of the Nazarene). And, the laughable part is the Jesus and God characters we know today were only spread into the public domain by Emperor Constantine. He forced the early architects of christianity to get their acts together and write a believable story of the Jesus Myth to make it look like it was an actual man and a real god Paul was promoting approximately 275 years earlier.
Yep, that's right, in 325 CE Emperor Constantine forced the christian writers to write the bible that was ultimately the result of the famous Nicene Creed. He then had it proofed via his own court appointees to ensure it was palatable. But, it still had many conflicts and they remain today. There are more in the Talmud, which contains the original Old Testament stories, with all their mistakes and horrible plagiarizing of known mythical events, that the christians could not get their hands on to destroy like they did to the library in ancient Alexandria.
Paul himself was a docetic gnostic, meaning, the Jesus and god he was promoting were only spiritual in nature and Jesus infrequently appeared as a man. The early christians promoting Jesus and god after him considered this heretical and decided to create a real life Jesus from thin air replete with a father (step), mother, birth date, death, life, miracles, disciples and the usual hero stuff cited in the bible. Trouble is, none of it is recorded in the court records of our good buddy Pontius Pilate, or any other records or public documents of the period the cast of characters were supposed to have lived. This was a material argument and resolution in the Nicene Creed.
Nazareth wasn't even on any of the cartography (maps) of the period. It didn't come into existence until Constantine had his mother scout out the vicinity it was supposed to exist in and rename an existing town when she turned up nothing. That's all because the writer of the gospel under the pseudonym of Mark misinterpreted Yeishua ha-Notzri - Jesus of the Nazarene (Nazarene was the name of the cult that promoted the benevolent god Paul was intrigued with) - as Jesus of Nazareth, thinking Jesus was from a place instead of a cult. The biblical writers were not too sharp and seldom corroborated their myth making to attempt to pass it off as factual.
BTW, no polemics can dispute the foregoing.
Anyway, if you are interested in finding out which corner atheists might turn to becoming believers, I give you the preceding link and my own prattle about the story as it actually went down. Go, fix those things and then return. I'm gullible on Monday mornings and late Friday evenings.
When god speculation (complete with Christian doctrine) becomes more credible than the well tested principles of nature, and there are no good, competing alternatives, then you can count me in.
The properties of God violate natural law. For example, saying that God knows all violates our basic understanding of the universe which is based on well tested principles examined under the most extreme conditions by highly competent observers all over the world. In this example one must violate the speed of light limit to know everything that is going on in the universe.
Understand that the properties of God have simply been penned in by theologians over the centuries. Nobody has gone upstairs, measured God, and credibly reported the results back down here. God got his modern powers the same way Superman did--by the stroke of a pen. So, we have wild speculation on one hand and carefully tested natural principles on the other hand. To me the choice is obvious.
You might urge that God created the world and is above natural principles. But wait! You are assuming God's existence in order to get past natural principles so that you can claim that God exists! This is circular reasoning. We must begin with what we know best, the well tested natural principles, and then ask if there is any good reason for believing in some being out there that is "above" those principles. The answer is no, absolutely no good reasons.
What bothers me about the Christian faith? Two things mainly. First of all it allows otherwise good people to do horrible things. The whole Inquisition had the noblest justification, that of preventing people from going to hell. Torture of the most hideous kinds was, under that rational, morally justified to get people right with God so that they could go to heaven rather than hell. The logic was flawless! Unfortunately, every religion that believes in hell now becomes an oppressor, especially if they seek to convert outsiders. Great wars are fought over whose god or god-given doctrines is right.
The second thing about the Christian faith is that it makes absolutely no sense! In the Old Testament people got along just fine for thousands of years without the idea of personal salvation and then, one day, God suddenly decided to change the rules. Indeed, the nature of hell, itself, changes! It goes from a gloomy but flameless sheol to the torture chamber it is today (for many sects). I've never seen any sensible explanation of why God had to shift gears. In short, religion is an evolved thing. If there was a real god, Christianity would have been set up properly from the start.
And, what about this idea that God is in 3 parts and that one of them has to hang on a cross to "atone" for our presumed sins? How God can be 3 independent parts and still be one has never been logically explained. That's not to say that theologians haven't done back flips through flaming hoops to try. But I've never seen any explanation that made any logical sense. Moreover, how does the torture of an innocent person absolve any bad thing I might have done? I see no connection at all. This is Old Testament sacrifice, itself illogical, updated.
The whole idea of hell is so insane that, on those grounds alone, I could reject Christianity. You can't tell me that God is all love and then tell me that he has created the most perfect torture chamber imaginable! Have you mistaken me for an utter idiot? Talk about infinite crimes requiring infinite punishment is infinitely insane! Some elements of Christianity have rejected this insanity, but it is more or less affirmed by the Jesus of the Gospels.
What are we to make of the holy book of Christianity? Here we have different accounts, even different viewpoints, stitched together and redacted, the whole showing an evolved history. Individual books were voted on, the winners of brutal political battles between various sects. Some books that were very popular at the start of Christianity were dropped. Other works, rejected by many Christians, barely squeaked through. When all is said and done, we have a book full of contradictions, errors of history, scientific absurdities, moral blunders, and failed prophecies. Sure, you can cherry-pick a collection of nice things from the Bible, but that doesn't change its basic nature. If the Bible is an integral part of Christianity, then that is a very good reason to reject Christianity.
So, there you have it in a nutshell.
Don't you know that this inane idiot will just claim that god knows magic to explain things like exceeding the speed of light? You can't reason with morons.
The reason this guy is hear is because he is a moron. No reasonable person that is christian (there is no such thing given that they believe in a myth) Would come here and pose such a question.
A reasonable christian would explore avenues of similar interest.
For example there is a worthwhile Baptist minister that is all for separation of church and state. He knows that his religion has nothing to do with government and most assuredly doesn't want government to dictate to his religion. That is a reasonable christian.
But this idiot is just coming here to sound off and start threads that have nothing to do with discussion, but rather to do with his fragile ego and the lingering question he has about his faith. He wants to confirm his own beliefs by winning arguments. He is a classic psychology case. Weak minded, fragile ego, demonstrative assertions.
"How can I convince you to be a believer?" Classic. A true christian, comfortable with their faith, wouldn't pose such a question. They would ask, "How can I be of service to you?" That should be their mission in life, thus being an example instead of an argumentative recruiter.
Begin by exhibiting how a single male and a single female can create an entire population.
Well, for starters you are making the assumption that anyone that rejects the faith is unfamiliar with it. What if we don’t need to be convinced, and we simply disagree with you. I have study the teachings of Christ for nearly 3 decades, and I’m sure he was correct on many points, but that’s not what you’re trying to convince me of, is it? You are actually not that sure yourself, and you are looking for validation. We’ve all been there brother.
I know Jesus was a genius, and I share his point of view; but I’m sure you don’t. Most modern Christians don’t have a clue who Christ was, nor what he taught. He didn’t spend nearly 4 years of his life teaching the world that he was awesome; so why are you doing it. Christ was a Jew, a carpenter, a mathematician, and a philosopher…I believe that.
There is no proof that the one they call christ actually ever existed. If christ did exist I doubt that he was a carpenter, a mathematician, a real philosopher. He may have been a jew if he actually existed. To be a bona fide philosopher, you actually have to have a philosophy. Just claiming that you are a prophecy realized isn't in any way shape or form a philosophy.
The Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman in his book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" commented on the one passage in the New Testament that refers to Jesus as a carpenter. Apparently the Greek word is better understood (in modern terms) as "construction worker" rather than a cabinet maker. But, as you noted, the evidence is so thin that Jesus' very existence can hardly be taken for granted. On the other hand, if the excesses in the Gospels are rolled back, the man Jesus would fit in with several others of that period (and afterwards) as a wandering "preacher" of sorts warning about the end of the world and doing "miracles."
It is immoral to allow yourself to become a scapegoat and not defend your innocence. It is immoral to allow yourself to die for a mythical sky god. The lessons of Christ's life represent a miserable philosophy long due for extinction.
Hi everybody, I just want you all to know that the bible is true and Jesus is Lord. In addition, I love you and Jesus loves you too.
Hi Ministry School ;
The story of Jesus Christ is an immoral one. First , a young woman is impregnated by a demonic sky god without asking her permission. In the tradition of the iron age patriarchy she receives no pleasure from the encounter. Throughout the New Testament Jesus never refers to Mary by name or "Mom" . He calls her "Woman".
Then , the demonic sky god decides to forgive us by torturing and brutally murdering his son as if he were trying to out do the story of Isaac and Abraham. We all know that making another human being a scapegoat or being made one yourself is immoral. What is moral is accountability and self responsibility. That is what our secular legal system is based on. This blood thirsty God could have simply forgave us but he had to make an ultra-violent show that haunts humanity to this day.
I reject this so called love you think is all beauty and light. I want no part of this sordid tale.
Could you offer some argument, for example: why should we accept your claims but reject similar---yet contradictory---claims from Hindus?
Prove it.
It's obvious that a bunch of you guys or maybe just one sock puppet are now posting a bunch of condescending bullshit on this forum. You can't stand it that there is even one forum of like minded people that just don't believe your bullshit. Go away sock puppet and take your minion morons with you.
I think that you are a sock puppet and have reported you.
Pages