A couple of questions about Christianity that cause me some difficulty

[jogger08152]

1. Humans in Hell vs. the perfect love of God

The best way I've been able to think of this problem is by analogy: Consider a mother playing with her five-year-old son in the front yard. The son begins running toward the street. The mother sees that a car is speeding along on a course that looks like a threat to intersect her son's, such that the child may be hit by the car if she does nothing to prevent it. What will she do, assuming an ordinary mother-child relationship? Clearly, the answer is she will do anything she can to prevent her child from being struck by the car - she'll yell, she'll run and grab her child up, she'll even leap into the car's path to push him out of the way, if it comes to that.

Now suppose the same thing happens the next day. What will she do? I think so. And the next day, the same, and the day after that, ad infinitum. That is to say, given the opportunity to prevent harm to her child, she will never fail, never stop or give up.

Translation: God is the mother. Man is the young child (young, because like a five-year-old, when it comes to spiritual matters, even the most knowledgable priest/rabbi/imam/etc is ignorant, let alone struggling poker players). Hell is the truck.

What's difficult for me is: how can it be that the mother will rescue her child as long as she has the ability to do it, whether she is a new mother at 19, or a great-great-great grandmother at 121 bravely limping after her 99-year-old "youngster", whereas God, whose love is "infinitely" (whatever that means) more perfect than the mother's, and whose capacity to save the child is also infinite (that is, He can unfailingly save us if He wishes with no risk to any party, nor even any measurable expenditure of effort), will eventually (specifically, at the moment of death, which is to say, the moment that the veil of spiritual ignorance is lifted) allow a person to fall into Hell, which is "infinitely" worse than being run over by a truck?

2. Humans in Hell vs. The perfect justice of God

The question here is, if God is just, for what offense might I wind up in Hell, where Hell is a place of "infinite" suffering that lasts forever? It seems impossible for the punishment to fit any crime.

Specifically, suppose I steal a pair of blue jeans from Sears. I've committed a crime with a finite cost. (It might be difficult to measure: perhaps the manager gets fired because he failed to prevent shoplifting, and as a result his kid doesn't get to go to college, or whatnot. But whatever the cost is, it can be measured, so no matter how high the direct and indirect costs can be, they are finite and measurable, if you have God's sin-o-meter.) Given that I am completely culpable for my finite crime, even for obscure indirect consequences I could not have foreseen (and which, had I forseen them, I might not have been willing to commit the theft in the first place), can it be possible that I would be sentenced to infinite suffering by a just God?

Suppose the answer is no: shoplifting is small potatoes. But what if I murder someone? I think that my sin, though much more serious, is still finite: I have deprived an individual of some number of years of life (perhaps measurable with God's technology, perhaps not, but most certainly the number is < 200), I have caused the economic and emotional damage to his friends and family that accompany his death, etc. But the cost of this is all measurable, in that 20,000 years from now, the effects of my act will "almost" certainly not be felt by humanity, assuming humanity itself still exists at that future date. (There is of course the chance that this is incorrect: if I hadn't killed him, either my victim might have personally cured cancer, say, or maybe one of the descendants he would have fathered would have accomplished something similarly important. But for most murders, this will not be the case.)

I have also, of course, hastened his journey into the afterlife, so there is the chance that, if he is an unrepentant sinner who would have later repented, I have deprived him of a chance of attaining heaven and have consigned him to Hell instead - except that I can't see any way he winds up in Hell either, if God is just. (What did he do, after all? Steal some blue jeans?)

Does anybody (religious folks especially) have any thoughts on these?

Thanks,
Jogger

PS - I've received one answer to this second question that may adequately cover the problem - I'm not certain. I'll post this later, if people are interested.

[Double Down]

Interesting post. Unfortunatly, you're hoping to have a logical debate on matters that are based on anything but. Prepare yourself for a bunch of biblical quotes /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[txag007]

1. God himself came down to our level in order to teach us how to avoid the truck. He himself took our punishment so that we might avoid the truck. And guess what? He overcame the truck! How can you have more love than that? He's given everyone the chance to avoid the truck. It's our responsibility to accept His offer.

2. Why do you think of Hell as punishment in the sense that you deserve Heaven. You don't deserve Heaven. I don't deserve Heaven. None of us do because we are born in a nature of sin. It's God's perfect love that has given us the opportunity at Heaven (see #1).

Heaven simply means the opportunity of being in God's presence. Think of it this way: God is light. Sin is darkness. But what is darkness? Darkness is the absence of light. Darkness cannot enter the presence of light any more than sin can enter the presence of God.

But Jesus gave His life for everyone. All we have to do is accept it. His perfect justice is why each one of us deserves Hell. His perfect love is why each one of us has the opportunity for Heaven. Will you accept His offer?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
1. God himself came down to our level in order to teach us how to avoid the truck. He himself took our punishment so that we might avoid the truck. And guess what? He overcame the truck! How can you have more love than that? He's given everyone the chance to avoid the truck. It's our responsibility to accept His offer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Txag,

I don't think this really addresses the problem. The mother wouldn't give her child "the opportunity" to avoid the truck, because what this really means is, the opportunity not to avoid it. (And remember: we are still spiritually ignorant. This isn't an informed choice, as might be made by a 35-year-old suicide deciding to step in front of a truck deliberately, assuming such a choice can be considered informed.)

[ QUOTE ]
2. Why do you think of Hell as punishment in the sense that you deserve Heaven. You don't deserve Heaven. I don't deserve Heaven. None of us do because we are born in a nature of sin.

[/ QUOTE ]
Much of the imagery of Hell implies that it is a "place" (should we say "state"?) of great suffering. I don't think I deserve that either, and I'm as sure as I can be that I don't deserve it simply because I was born. Remember that being "born in sin" is the same as "being born" - that is, it applies without choice or guilt, and in every case where birth occurs (apart, perhaps, from two exceptions).

[ QUOTE ]
It's God's perfect love that has given us the opportunity at Heaven (see #1).

Heaven simply means the opportunity of being in God's presence. Think of it this way: God is light. Sin is darkness. But what is darkness? Darkness is the absence of light. Darkness cannot enter the presence of light any more than sin can enter the presence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does this gibe with a Biblical (and/or Christian, where that differs) account of Hell? Mere darkness doens't imply suffering, and I don't think it would be unjust (though it also wouldn't necessarily be loving) for God not to provide "light" for some souls.

Best regards,
Jogger

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
None of us do because we are born in a nature of sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it bizarre that people don't see how cruel this is.

this alone shows that this supposed God is more evil than any other being I know of.

[jogger08152]

I don't think the two (logical debate and Biblical quotes) are necessarily mutually exclusive, assuming you accept the possibility that the Bible can speak authoritatively on spiritual matters. Really, part of my objective in bringing up the questions in the first place is to better understand/define whether or not it can do so.

Best regards,
Jogger

[I AM A ROBOT]

IN THE FUTURE ROBOTS WILL DESTROY ALL HUMANS AND RELIGION.

[ChrisV]

txag, you managed to pack a lot of the things I find stupid about Christianity into one post.

[ QUOTE ]
1. God himself came down to our level in order to teach us how to avoid the truck. He himself took our punishment so that we might avoid the truck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus and the Father are all one God, right? This means that God punished himself so that he didn't have to punish us. Why? Why not just decide not to punish us?

[ QUOTE ]
He's given everyone the chance to avoid the truck. It's our responsibility to accept His offer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if we do what he says, of course. "Obey my instructions or be tortured for all eternity". What would you think of a person who said that?

[ QUOTE ]
His perfect justice is why each one of us deserves Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

We deserve to be tortured for all eternity? That's some strange "justice" you have there. Suppose it was your job to torture me. Would you do it?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
IN THE FUTURE ROBOTS WILL DESTROY ALL HUMANS AND RELIGION.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've suspected that was your plan all along.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this really addresses the problem. The mother wouldn't give her child "the opportunity" to avoid the truck, because what this really means is, the opportunity not to avoid it.

[/ QUOTE ]
So a loving God would have made a bunch of robots? Is that what you are saying?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
None of us do because we are born in a nature of sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it bizarre that people don't see how cruel this is.

this alone shows that this supposed God is more evil than any other being I know of.

[/ QUOTE ]
So a loving God would have avoided this by creating humans without free will? Is that what you are saying?

EDIT: Or are you asking why you should be held responsible for the sins of mankind? What you are failing to understand is that God can't contradict his own nature.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus and the Father are all one God, right? This means that God punished himself so that he didn't have to punish us. Why? Why not just decide not to punish us?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. He must really love us or something.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
None of us do because we are born in a nature of sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it bizarre that people don't see how cruel this is.

this alone shows that this supposed God is more evil than any other being I know of.

[/ QUOTE ]
So a loving God would have avoided this by creating humans without free will? Is that what you are saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

why would he have to create us without free will?

when a child is born, they haven't made a single choice..

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Or are you asking why you should be held responsible for the sins of mankind?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

[ QUOTE ]
What you are failing to understand is that God can't contradict his own nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

what nature? to be a douche? What in his nature forces him to consider a person as sinful when they haven't even made a single decision yet?

[jogger08152]

Do you believe the child in my example is somehow a robot?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus and the Father are all one God, right? This means that God punished himself so that he didn't have to punish us. Why? Why not just decide not to punish us?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. He must really love us or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

so my wife slams the door in the middle of the night and wakes me up..

I can..

1) forgive her
2) stab myself in the stomach and forgive her

doing #2 shows how much I love her?

seriously txag, your responses are becomming more and more evasive.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
what nature? to be a douche?

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't deserve an answer.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
seriously txag, your responses are becomming more and more evasive.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does the Bible say about who God is (His nature)?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what nature? to be a douche?

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't deserve an answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't expect an answer to that one.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
so my wife slams the door in the middle of the night and wakes me up..

I can..

1) forgive her
2) stab myself in the stomach and forgive her

doing #2 shows how much I love her?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously yes, in terms of your analogy.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe the child in my example is somehow a robot?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The mother wouldn't give her child "the opportunity" to avoid the truck, because what this really means is, the opportunity not to avoid it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would a true loving God have given humans free will?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
seriously txag, your responses are becomming more and more evasive.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does the Bible say about who God is (His nature)?

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you keep avoiding actually answering my questions?

I suppose you are looking for me to say that the Bible says that God cannot contradict his nature???

and as I asked before,

[ QUOTE ]
What in his nature forces him to consider a person as sinful when they haven't even made a single decision yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

[furyshade]

i agree with prodigy, what just god would force humanity to share the sin of one person who wished to have knowledge? and i also wonder about that whole "free will" thing, our will is limited to our knowledge, if i live in a remote african village and never hear of christianity in my life, do i go to hell for my original sin?

[ChrisV]

The usual reply is that people who've never heard of Jesus are exempt from having to accept him as Lord. To save future generations from hell, therefore, we should not spread the Gospel, but rather eradicate it from the face of the Earth, so nobody has heard of Jesus and everybody will be saved. QED.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe the child in my example is somehow a robot?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The mother wouldn't give her child "the opportunity" to avoid the truck, because what this really means is, the opportunity not to avoid it.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would a true loving God have given humans free will?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know. Christians believe that God created stones, carrots and yellow-throated warblers without granting them free will, right? And creating these things did not change his nature to "non-loving God", right?

And even if the idea that "to lovingly create humans" somehow must be construed to include "...and must give free will to them" (and of course I don't understand why this should be so prima facie: we think of humans as having free will only because we seem to have experienced it; if there is an obvious but non-tautological reason why "human" must include "free will", I don't see it), why shouldn't God provide some sort of free will whose worst manifestation could not lead to infinite harm?

For instance, it seems to me that it would be more loving for God to give humans free will that, if misused by any particular human recipient, would at worst lead to that individual suffering the fiery torture of Hell for not more than (say) eleven million years. Once we say that the form of free will given humans by God can lead to eleven million and one years of fiery torture or more, couldn't we argue that the "gift" of free will is more of a curse? Or at least, couldn't you and I agree that we, imperfect though we are, seemingly can imagine a modified version of free will that appear to be "better" than the one (that God gave us, Christians believe) that sometimes ends with us enduring Hell for eternity?

Put another way, since God is divinely loving and he chose to invent both "free will" and "consequences", isn't it weird to think of him as having also invented Hell, then linked it to free will via consequence?

Put another nother way, the only way Hell could be necessary to the existence of free will, would be if God made it so, which would be especially strange if God is in fact even more loving than our moms and dads. I think.

Best regards,
Jogger

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
seriously txag, your responses are becomming more and more evasive.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does the Bible say about who God is (His nature)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. I really thought you would have read the Bible!

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
What in his nature forces him to consider a person as sinful when they haven't even made a single decision yet?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not God's opinion that we are born into sin; we are. Here's an example: Look at a nursery full of two year olds. Let enough time pass and one kid will have all the toys in the room. Did someone teach that kid to be selfish? No. It's natural. Why? We are born sinful.

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What in his nature forces him to consider a person as sinful when they haven't even made a single decision yet?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not God's opinion that we are born into sin; we are. Here's an example: Look at a nursery full of two year olds. Let enough time pass and one kid will have all the toys in the room. Did someone teach that kid to be selfish? No. It's natural. Why? We are born sinful.

[/ QUOTE ]

um, let's look at genesis, were adam and eve born in sin? unless i am mistaken they were not, god cursed human kind by being born with sin after eve ate the fruit, which means god gave humans sin at birth, it isn't natural assuming the bible is true

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What in his nature forces him to consider a person as sinful when they haven't even made a single decision yet?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not God's opinion that we are born into sin; we are. Here's an example: Look at a nursery full of two year olds. Let enough time pass and one kid will have all the toys in the room. Did someone teach that kid to be selfish? No. It's natural. Why? We are born sinful.

[/ QUOTE ]

forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe our sinful nature supposedly comes from Adam and Eves' concious decision to sin.

it is this inheritance of sin that I find to be cruel.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
We are born sinful.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are born sinful.

Speak for yourself, arrogant xtian.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's an example: Look at a nursery full of two year olds. Let enough time pass and one kid will have all the toys in the room. Did someone teach that kid to be selfish? No. It's natural. Why? We are born sinful.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the kid who ends up with all the toys deserves to be tortured for eternity? Doesn't this strike you as a little out of proportion to the crime?

The fact that you could even use the example of a 2-yo in a nursery as an example of "sin" illustrates why the concept of original sin is so repugnant to me.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
The usual reply is that people who've never heard of Jesus are exempt from having to accept him as Lord. To save future generations from hell, therefore, we should not spread the Gospel, but rather eradicate it from the face of the Earth, so nobody has heard of Jesus and everybody will be saved. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this plan.

What's QED btw? I finally figured out what QFT means and now this.

[ChrisV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

[Ben K]

Oh dear.

The 2 year old that ends up with all the toys hasn't committed any sin. He doesn't understand enough to be able to enact his free will and 'choose' to sin or to follow Jesus.

Besides the bible doesn't say it's a sin to hog the toys. However, the bible does appluad offering your concubine to the mob to be gang raped and murdered, go figure

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's an example: Look at a nursery full of two year olds. Let enough time pass and one kid will have all the toys in the room. Did someone teach that kid to be selfish? No. It's natural. Why? We are born sinful.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the kid who ends up with all the toys deserves to be tortured for eternity? Doesn't this strike you as a little out of proportion to the crime?

The fact that you could even use the example of a 2-yo in a nursery as an example of "sin" illustrates why the concept of original sin is so repugnant to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. Unfortunately, though, it's reality. Everyone one of us is a sinner in need of God's grace.

[Peter666]

1. While God may be perfect love, it does not mean that people are worthy of it. If the son WANTS to keep running into the street and get hit by a car, isn't it more loving to let him eventually do it? If you were to rescue him every single time, it means you do not respect his free will, and are thus not acting out of altruistic love, but selfish love.

2. The false assumption in this question is that Hell is a place of infinite suffering. It is not. It is a place of finite suffering in proportion to your sins, in the absence of time. So it is perfectly just.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's an example: Look at a nursery full of two year olds. Let enough time pass and one kid will have all the toys in the room. Did someone teach that kid to be selfish? No. It's natural. Why? We are born sinful.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the kid who ends up with all the toys deserves to be tortured for eternity? Doesn't this strike you as a little out of proportion to the crime?

The fact that you could even use the example of a 2-yo in a nursery as an example of "sin" illustrates why the concept of original sin is so repugnant to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. Unfortunately, though, it's reality. Everyone one of us is a sinner in need of God's grace.

[/ QUOTE ]

This demonstrates well the fundamental disconnect with myself and reality that Christians have.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
2. The false assumption in this question is that Hell is a place of infinite suffering. It is not. It is a place of finite suffering in proportion to your sins, in the absence of time. So it is perfectly just.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sez you. Any support for this in the Bible?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. The false assumption in this question is that Hell is a place of infinite suffering. It is not. It is a place of finite suffering in proportion to your sins, in the absence of time. So it is perfectly just.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sez you. Any support for this in the Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wonder this also. If so, that's an improvement, but a finite amount of suffering endured over an infinite amount of time, would also seem out of proportion to any sin I could commit of finite magnitude and whose (adverse) consequences were of finite duration.

[jogger08152]

Your response to 1. above is pretty counterintuitive. I believe there is a selfish component to all love, or at least, it wouldn't surprise me if this turned out to be the case. And I don't see why "respecting" someone's free will (always assuming this exists) must be a prerequisite for love, altruistic or otherwise, in any case.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
2. The false assumption in this question is that Hell is a place of infinite suffering. It is not. It is a place of finite suffering in proportion to your sins, in the absence of time. So it is perfectly just.

[/ QUOTE ]

And others on this forum have said hell is just non-existence, or separation from god, or a hundred other things.

It seems a little strange that such a central belief of the Christian faith can be altered at will by individuals to suit their own tastes.

[ChrisV]

I'm a straightforward kind of guy and when Jesus says things like:

[ QUOTE ]
When the Son of man shall come in his glory... then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

and:

[ QUOTE ]
into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

[/ QUOTE ]

and Revelations chimes in with:

[ QUOTE ]
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire... where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to take them at their word. But hey, if you don't like something in the Bible, you just "reinterpret" it, right? That's what Christianity's all about!

[David Sklansky]

"The false assumption in this question is that Hell is a place of infinite suffering. It is not. It is a place of finite suffering in proportion to your sins, in the absence of time. So it is perfectly just."

What is that statement based on?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't deserve Heaven. I don't deserve Heaven. None of us do because we are born in a nature of sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's very important to reiterate that this teaching is at the heart of Christianity, and is (IMO) the core reason why Christianity can never be a positive influence.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't deserve Heaven. I don't deserve Heaven. None of us do because we are born in a nature of sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's very important to reiterate that this teaching is at the heart of Christianity, and is (IMO) the core reason why Christianity can never be a positive influence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
The 2 year old that ends up with all the toys hasn't committed any sin. He doesn't understand enough to be able to enact his free will and 'choose' to sin or to follow Jesus.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly why sin isn't something we choose. It is something we are born into. Question: Is selfishness a sin?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Question: Is selfishness a sin?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a two year old? No.

We all know humans aren't perfect. But some are better than others. But it doesn't really matter, as worshiping a particular invisible spirit is more important than sin or lack thereof anyway. I'm sure there are some Muslims who are living an exemplary life of selfless giving who sadly have eternal torture in store for them.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
We all know humans aren't perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. That's the point.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure there are some Muslims who are living an exemplary life of selfless giving who sadly have eternal torture in store for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

On what do you base that assertion?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
On what do you base that assertion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior a requirement for heaven according to Christianity? If it's all about how good we live then which god we worship (or not) shouldn't matter.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]

"The false assumption in this question is that Hell is a place of infinite suffering. It is not. It is a place of finite suffering in proportion to your sins, in the absence of time. So it is perfectly just."

What is that statement based on?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and just plain common sense. A finite being (the human soul) could not have the capacity to suffer infinitely.

I think Protestantism has confused people into believing that the afterlife is a communist state. It is not. Everyone gets rewarded or punished on a degree of merit.

[Brenner Hayes]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and just plain common sense. A finite being (the human soul) could not have the capacity to suffer infinitely.


[/ QUOTE ] How is this common sense? Doesn't God have infinite powers? But if it is common sense, then I assume you also believe that a finite being (the human soul) could not have the capacity to be rewarded infinitely, right? So please elaborate on the heaven limitations. I'm sure all your fellow Catholics would be very interested to learn about them. Maybe you could start by teaching about the upper bounds of rewards for the saints, and what rewards AREN'T being bestowed on the virgin Mary.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
A finite being (the human soul)

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you think the human soul is finite?

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone gets rewarded or punished on a degree of merit.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true in that it is clearly what the Bible teaches.

[Peter666]

"How is this common sense?" Because it is logical.

"Doesn't God have infinite powers?" Yes. He is also just. A just God could not make someone suffer infinite pain for a finite crime.

As for the Heaven limitations: Heaven is a place of perfect happiness for everyone who gets in. But there is also a hierarchy based on merit. The more merit you have, the larger the capacity you will have for experiencing the pleasures of Heaven.

So an innocent child and an adult will both be perfectly happy in Heaven. However, the adult will have had the chance to increase their capacity for happiness by meritorious good works. Once in heaven, both the adult and the child will be perfectly "full" of happiness, but the adult will have a larger quantity (if they have performed more good works).

The only being capable of having an infinite capacity for happiness is God Himself.

[Peter666]

"What makes you think the human soul is finite?"

Because of its ignorance and desire to know, do and feel more. However, this is not to be confused with a soul's immortality. Something can be finite yet still exist forever.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"How is this common sense?" Because it is logical.

"Doesn't God have infinite powers?" Yes. He is also just. A just God could not make someone suffer infinite pain for a finite crime.

As for the Heaven limitations: Heaven is a place of perfect happiness for everyone who gets in. But there is also a hierarchy based on merit. The more merit you have, the larger the capacity you will have for experiencing the pleasures of Heaven.

So an innocent child and an adult will both be perfectly happy in Heaven. However, the adult will have had the chance to increase their capacity for happiness by meritorious good works. Once in heaven, both the adult and the child will be perfectly "full" of happiness, but the adult will have a larger quantity (if they have performed more good works).

The only being capable of having an infinite capacity for happiness is God Himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a ludicrous interpretation of the definition of 'perfect happiness.'

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
"How is this common sense?" Because it is logical.


[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense and logic fly out the window when you start talking about the tenants of most religions.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"How is this common sense?" Because it is logical.


[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense and logic fly out the window when you start talking about the tenants of most religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

One must note that the pinnacle of development of Logic as a science was ca 13th-14th centuries. And this was accomplished by profoundly religious men.

But it is true that there are many different religions with flawed logic. And this has to do precisely with the flawed founders of those religions and their logical errors.

[Peter666]

"This is a ludicrous interpretation of the definition of 'perfect happiness.'"

Especially since no attempt to define 'perfect happiness' was made.

[kurto]

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that religion relies on Faith.

Because profoundly religious men made strides in logic does not imply that religion is logical.

[ QUOTE ]
But it is true that there are many different religions with flawed logic. And this has to do precisely with the flawed founders of those religions and their logical errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet most of these flawed religions claim to be inspired by their Gods.

The Judeo/Christian religions fit well into 'flawed' religions.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"This is a ludicrous interpretation of the definition of 'perfect happiness.'"

Especially since no attempt to define 'perfect happiness' was made.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the Heaven limitations: Heaven is a place of perfect happiness for everyone who gets in. But there is also a hierarchy based on merit. The more merit you have, the larger the capacity you will have for experiencing the pleasures of Heaven.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? While not a strict definition of perfect happiness, this implies things about the concept that are ludicrous. For one, that it is in any way meaningful to say that some people could have 'more' perfect happiness than others.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
The Judeo/Christian religions fit well into 'flawed' religions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ooooooohhh. He told you, Peter666! /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[Peter666]

If I take a cup and fill it with water to its brim, and I take a bucket and fill it with water to its brim, which is more full than the other?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
If I take a cup and fill it with water to its brim, and I take a bucket and fill it with water to its brim, which is more full than the other?

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither, but the bucket has more water in it.
-Jogger

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I take a cup and fill it with water to its brim, and I take a bucket and fill it with water to its brim, which is more full than the other?

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither, but the bucket has more water in it.
-Jogger

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Now explain that to Vhawk. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PokerFox]

peter, txag, and others: maybe you could try being a little more modest and a little less arrogant and self-righteous. The problem with these discussions is how bent out of shape you get and how 'holier-than-thou' you act when your belief is questioned.

For the record, I was raised Christian, consider myself spiritual, but do not attend church regularly anymore (I am 23), and the reason I don't is that modern churches have more economic and power-hungry reasons behind them than spiritual. Does that mean I'm going to Hell?

[furyshade]

please explain to me how one can suffer finitely over an infinite amount of time, that sounds to me like infinite suffering. and i also do not understand how a completely righteous person not of christian faith can be sent to hell or even purgatory. surely lesser christians who have repented, even ones who have sinned very much can still get into heaven; this seems quite unjust.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
peter, txag, and others: maybe you could try being a little more modest and a little less arrogant and self-righteous. The problem with these discussions is how bent out of shape you get and how 'holier-than-thou' you act when your belief is questioned.

For the record, I was raised Christian, consider myself spiritual, but do not attend church regularly anymore (I am 23), and the reason I don't is that modern churches have more economic and power-hungry reasons behind them than spiritual. Does that mean I'm going to Hell?

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to answer your last question, but as the answer is unavoidably self righteous and holy sounding, I won't.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
please explain to me how one can suffer finitely over an infinite amount of time, that sounds to me like infinite suffering. and i also do not understand how a completely righteous person not of christian faith can be sent to hell or even purgatory. surely lesser christians who have repented, even ones who have sinned very much can still get into heaven; this seems quite unjust.

[/ QUOTE ]

One has to think of eternity not as an incredibly long amount of time that goes on forever, but as the absence of time, or a perpetual NOW. We cannot comprehend this fully, because we are currently creatures in time, but we can understand that the state you have merited in eternity is completely proportional to the good or evil of your actions. And a perfectly just God will punish someone in a completely fair manner.

A completely righteous person will always go to Heaven even if they are not officially Baptized by someone. However, we are assuming that they are truly innocent if they hold wrong beliefs. Also, practicing Christians will have to answer for any graces they have squandered as compared to people who were not as fortunate and they were to receive them while on Earth. So in the end, everything will be fair and just.

[Alex-db]

This might seem like a silly question, but what is all of this discussion based on?

It sounds like:
"Someone told me heaven and hell works like X"
"No, no, it is more logically consistent if it works like Y"
"But I heard it works like Z, which sounds nicer"

Clearly, being logically consistent within its own fantasy world, being something we would like to exist, or being mentioned in ancient mythological scripture, are no basis for a philosophical discussion unless it were nothing but a hypothetical academic exercise.

I know you guys don't like to avoid jumping to some speculative conclusion about life after death without any evidence (as atheism), so why don't we try assuming reincarnation unless someone can say something meaningful?

[Taraz]

I'm so confused as to where txag and Peter666 are getting all this from and why they are so sure that their position is absolutely correct.

If you're getting this information from the Bible, isn't it possible (and likely) that you aren't interpreting it perfectly. If you are getting it from a priest or preacher, isn't it possible that they have misinterpreted something? Isn't religion supposed to be all about interpretation? How/Why are you so sure that yours is the correct one? (Please don't answer "because I felt God's presence" since every religious person on the face of the planet has "felt God's presence" and they don't all believe the same thing.)

I can respect your beliefs, but don't act like there isn't a fairly large probability that you are wrong.

[ChrisV]

Peter666 in particular is quoting as a fact of Christianity a whole bunch of stuff that there is absolutely zero support for in the Bible.

But hey, welcome to Catholicism I guess.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
This might seem like a silly question, but what is all of this discussion based on?


Clearly, being logically consistent within its own fantasy world... [is] no basis for a philosophical discussion unless it were nothing but a hypothetical academic exercise...

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree: testing its consistency is one way to work towards determining whether or not Christianity is the "fantasy world" you believe it is.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This might seem like a silly question, but what is all of this discussion based on?


Clearly, being logically consistent within its own fantasy world... [is] no basis for a philosophical discussion unless it were nothing but a hypothetical academic exercise...

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree: testing its consistency is one way to work towards determining whether or not Christianity is the "fantasy world" you believe it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I can create any number of internally consistent fantasy worlds each of which have no more material chance of being real than an inconsistent one.

It would be like saying that since the Star Trek 'reality' is internally more consistent than the Biblical 'reality', it is (materially) more likely to actually be in existence.

[txag007]

Arrogant and self-righteous? Me? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I was raised Christian, consider myself spiritual, but do not attend church regularly anymore (I am 23), and the reason I don't is that modern churches have more economic and power-hungry reasons behind them than spiritual. Does that mean I'm going to Hell?

[/ QUOTE ]
It means you need to find a new church. They're not all the same.

[Alex-db]

Also, if you are suggesting internal consistency as an indicator of existence, are you actively accepting internal inconsitency as evidence that something is unlikley to exist?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
and i also do not understand how a completely righteous person not of christian faith can be sent to hell or even purgatory.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you define 'righteous'?

Merriam-Webster defines it as: 1: acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're getting this information from the Bible, isn't it possible (and likely) that you aren't interpreting it perfectly. If you are getting it from a priest or preacher, isn't it possible that they have misinterpreted something? Isn't religion supposed to be all about interpretation? How/Why are you so sure that yours is the correct one?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Bible is pretty clear when taken in the proper context. If you take issue with something I've said in particular, let me know and we can discuss it.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're getting this information from the Bible, isn't it possible (and likely) that you aren't interpreting it perfectly. If you are getting it from a priest or preacher, isn't it possible that they have misinterpreted something? Isn't religion supposed to be all about interpretation? How/Why are you so sure that yours is the correct one?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Bible is pretty clear when taken in the proper context. If you take issue with something I've said in particular, let me know and we can discuss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

By discuss it I assume you mean that you'll simply ask vague questions when challenged.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're getting this information from the Bible, isn't it possible (and likely) that you aren't interpreting it perfectly. If you are getting it from a priest or preacher, isn't it possible that they have misinterpreted something? Isn't religion supposed to be all about interpretation? How/Why are you so sure that yours is the correct one?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Bible is pretty clear when taken in the proper context. If you take issue with something I've said in particular, let me know and we can discuss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, as the hundreds of Christian denominations makes abundantly clear.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're getting this information from the Bible, isn't it possible (and likely) that you aren't interpreting it perfectly. If you are getting it from a priest or preacher, isn't it possible that they have misinterpreted something? Isn't religion supposed to be all about interpretation? How/Why are you so sure that yours is the correct one?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Bible is pretty clear when taken in the proper context. If you take issue with something I've said in particular, let me know and we can discuss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just curious as to why you are sure that the context you consider the Bible in is the correct one. From whom and when did you learn to look at the Bible in this way?

I don't want to get into an argument over specifics really, I just want to know how/why I should believe your interpretation over someone else's.

One of my best friends is a Christian with strong faith and he has told me before that you can't "pick and choose" from the Bible. I personally don't understand why not since all denominations of Christianity are picking and choosing. I will agree that they agree on most issues, but there are several important things they don't agree on.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, as the hundreds of Christian denominations makes abundantly clear.

[/ QUOTE ]
The variety of mainstream Christian denominations differ generally not on various interpretations of what the Bible says, but rather on differing beliefs about what it doesn't say. Things like worship styles, methods of baptism, etc.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get into an argument over specifics really, I just want to know how/why I should believe your interpretation over someone else's.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking you to believe my interpretation. I'm asking you to go and look for yourself using the same methods of analysis you would use to evaluate any other issue, problem, or historical document.

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The 2 year old that ends up with all the toys hasn't committed any sin. He doesn't understand enough to be able to enact his free will and 'choose' to sin or to follow Jesus.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly why sin isn't something we choose. It is something we are born into. Question: Is selfishness a sin?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't. There is no god, therefore there is no sin. It's really very simple.

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get into an argument over specifics really, I just want to know how/why I should believe your interpretation over someone else's.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking you to believe my interpretation. I'm asking you to go and look for yourself using the same methods of analysis you would use to evaluate any other issue, problem, or historical document.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of us aren't good historians but this guy is. Read at your leasure.

The evidential failure of resurrection (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html)

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and i also do not understand how a completely righteous person not of christian faith can be sent to hell or even purgatory.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you define 'righteous'?

Merriam-Webster defines it as: 1: acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome! I am very righteous. Very very little guilt because I'm generally moral and no sin because it doesn't exist.

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't deserve Heaven. I don't deserve Heaven. None of us do because we are born in a nature of sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's very important to reiterate that this teaching is at the heart of Christianity, and is (IMO) the core reason why Christianity can never be a positive influence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you're saying someone is bad before they've even had their first suck on a tit. The one point in someone's life that they can definately be said to have done nothing wrong, you come along and try to impose a sense of guilt for it.

[txag007]

Okay. We obviously disagree on whether or not a person is born sinful. Regardless, your post failed to explain why Christianity can never be a positive influence. Again I ask: Why?

[Ben K]

I had typed a list of "Because ...." but I think this is better.

Christianity can never be a positive influence because it teaches that we are born into sin. The most innocent moment of a persons life is sinful in your eyes. At the very point it relaxes that rule, we have something that is not christianity. Therefore, christianity can never be a positive influence.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay. We obviously disagree on whether or not a person is born sinful. Regardless, your post failed to explain why Christianity can never be a positive influence. Again I ask: Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain this aspect of Christianity to me...

Why would God implant an evil/sinned soul into a mother's womb all because the very first guy was duped into eating an apple off a tree which was seemingly there only for entrapment purposes anyway? And if this sinned soul doesn't get baptized, is not born into the right religion, or logically concludes a Christian God doesn't make sense, he is damned to hell for all eternity.

Do you really think God is such a trickster? And if so, is your worship based mainly out of fear for such a tyrant?

[Ben K]

And what happened to forgiveness for the poor duped apple-eating guy?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get into an argument over specifics really, I just want to know how/why I should believe your interpretation over someone else's.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking you to believe my interpretation. I'm asking you to go and look for yourself using the same methods of analysis you would use to evaluate any other issue, problem, or historical document.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of us aren't good historians but this guy is. Read at your leasure.

The evidential failure of resurrection (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html)

[/ QUOTE ]
I've read most of this before. I'll ask you the same question I asked (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8685043&page=0&vc=1) ChrisV: Why do you trust what Richard Carrier says on the topic of the resurrection?

Regarding his criticism of the analogy comparing Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon to the resurrection, I have a few questions for you (since you regard Mr. Carrier so highly as an historian). For a much deeper discussion of the questions I am about to propose, see here. (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rubicon.html)

Specifically:

Where in <u>The Civil War</u> does Caesar speak of the crossing of the Rubicon? Carrier doesn't provide a quote or reference in his article.

What enemies of Caesar reported the crossing of the Rubicon? Carrier doesn't say. He mentions Cicero, but to that I ask, was Cicero even an enemy? Regardless, one shouldn't expect the enemies of the resurrection to record it for it would not suit their purpose. Incidently, a few non-christians (Josephus, Tacitus) did record that early christians believed Jesus was resurrected.

Regarding the inscriptions and coins that are "related to the Rubicon crossing", does "related to" simply mean something that leads to the logical deduction that Caesar crossed the Rubicon? If so, then Paul's letters do the same thing for the resurrection. Or rather, do the coins and inscriptions directly depict Caesar crossing the Rubicon? Carrier isn't clear on this point.

Carrier mentions accounts from various historians referencing Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. The historians he mentions wrote even later than he believes the Gospels to be written: Appian in the 2nd century, Plutarch after 70 A.D., Suetonius around 115 A.D. Moreover, the earliest manuscripts of these works are more than a millenium removed from their originals. Why should they be trusted more than the Gospels?

So I ask: There appears to be no reason not to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 B.C., but in light of what I have just mentioned, why do you trust Carrier when he devalues the evidence for the resurrection?

[kurto]

If you can't believe the more believable story of Caesar, you'd certainly have to laugh at the idea of taking the Bible seriously.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't believe the more believable story of Caesar, you'd certainly have to laugh at the idea of taking the Bible seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you even read my post? I said:

[ QUOTE ]
So I ask: There appears to be no reason not to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 B.C., but in light of what I have just mentioned, why do you trust Carrier when he devalues the evidence for the resurrection?

[/ QUOTE ]

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't believe the more believable story of Caesar, you'd certainly have to laugh at the idea of taking the Bible seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you even read my post? I said:

[ QUOTE ]
So I ask: There appears to be no reason not to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 B.C., but in light of what I have just mentioned, why do you trust Carrier when he devalues the evidence for the resurrection?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the strength of his arguments about why the resurrection is likely nonsense.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get into an argument over specifics really, I just want to know how/why I should believe your interpretation over someone else's.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking you to believe my interpretation. I'm asking you to go and look for yourself using the same methods of analysis you would use to evaluate any other issue, problem, or historical document.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I have done this and reached a different conclusion. It seems that many Christians believe that if my search/investigation doesn't lead me to believe the same things that they do that "I'm not honest with myself" or something to that effect.

Basically I don't understand why your interpretation would have more validity than the interpretation of someone like me. I believe that Christianity has many important messages for mankind. I also believe that early Christian authors believed that they needed to embellish certain stories and exaggerate certain things to have a greater effect on their audiences. I don't believe in a physical resurrection, original sin, or that Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for this sin. Many Christians would believe that I am going to hell. My question is why are they so sure? Why is my interpretation less valid?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
But I have done this and reached a different conclusion. It seems that many Christians believe that if my search/investigation doesn't lead me to believe the same things that they do that "I'm not honest with myself" or something to that effect.

Basically I don't understand why your interpretation would have more validity than the interpretation of someone like me. I believe that Christianity has many important messages for mankind. I also believe that early Christian authors believed that they needed to embellish certain stories and exaggerate certain things to have a greater effect on their audiences. I don't believe in a physical resurrection, original sin, or that Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for this sin. Many Christians would believe that I am going to hell. My question is why are they so sure? Why is my interpretation less valid?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the theists who suggest this fail to realize that many of us were believers who... and the more we looked the more we realized the Bible did not true.

We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the strength of his arguments about why the resurrection is likely nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]
What? Like when he says that overcoming death isn't good enough to prove that Jesus lives? Like when he says that a real god could do a much better trick then that? Is that the "strength of his arguments" to which you are referring?

[kurto]

Actually, I think his opening example with the story of Saint Genevieve is compelling enough.

[ QUOTE ]
It actually begins with a different tale. In 520 A.D. an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead. No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened--by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin. Yet do we believe any of it? Not really. And we shouldn't.[

[/ QUOTE ]

This alone is reason to doubt the truth of things in the Bible which we know contradict everything we know about reality....

[ QUOTE ]
But reasons to be skeptical do not stop there. We must consider the setting--the place and time in which these stories spread. This was an age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere, and almost never doubted. I'll give one example that illustrates this: we have several accounts of what the common people thought about lunar eclipses. They apparently had no doubt that this horrible event was the result of witches calling the moon down with diabolical spells. So when an eclipse occurred, everyone would frantically start banging pots and blowing brass horns furiously, to confuse the witches' spells. So tremendous was this din that many better-educated authors complain of how the racket filled entire cities and countrysides. This was a superstitious people.[9]

Only a small class of elite well-educated men adopted more skeptical points of view, and because they belonged to the upper class, both them and their arrogant skepticism were scorned by the common people, rather than respected. Plutarch laments how doctors were willing to attend to the sick among the poor for little or no fee, but they were usually sent away, in preference for the local wizard.[10] By modern standards, almost no one had any sort of education at all, and there were no mass media disseminating scientific facts in any form. By the estimates of William Harris, author of Ancient Literacy [1989], only 20% of the population could read anything at all, fewer than 10% could read well, and far fewer still had any access to books. He found that in comparative terms, even a single page of blank papyrus cost the equivalent of thirty dollars--ink, and the labor to hand copy every word, cost many times more. We find that books could run to the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Consequently, only the rich had books, and only elite scholars had access to libraries, of which there were few. The result was that the masses had no understanding of science or critical thought. They were neither equipped nor skilled, nor even interested, in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story like that of the Gospels: utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class society--even more a story that, if believed, secured eternal life. Who wouldn't have bought a ticket to that lottery? Opposition arose mainly from prior commitments to other dogmas, not reason or evidence.

The differences between society then and now cannot be stressed enough. There didn't exist such things as coroners, reporters, cameras, newspapers, forensic science, or even police detectives. All the technology, all the people we have pursuing the truth of various claims now, did not exist then. In those days, few would even be able to check the details of a story if they wanted to--and few wanted to. Instead, people based their judgment on the display of sincerity by the storyteller, by his ability to impress them with a show or simply to persuade and "sell" his story, and by the potential rewards his story had to offer.[11] At the same time, doubters didn't care to waste the time or money debunking yet another crazy cult, of which there were hundreds then.[12] And so it should not surprise us that we have no writings by anyone hostile to Christianity until a century after it began--not even slanders or lies. Clearly, no doubter cared to check or even challenge the story in print until it was too late to investigate the facts.[13]

These are just some of the reasons why we cannot trust extraordinary reports from that time without excellent evidence, which we do not have in the case of the physical resurrection of Jesus. For on the same quality of evidence we have reports of talking dogs, flying wizards, magical statues, and monsters springing from trees.[14] Can you imagine a movement today claiming that a soldier in World War Two rose physically from the dead, but when you asked for proof all they offered you were a mere handful of anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980's? Would it be even remotely reasonable to believe such a thing on so feeble a proof? Well--no.[15] What about alien bodies recovered from a crashed flying saucer in Roswell, New Mexico? Many people sincerely believe that legend today, yet this is the modern age, with ample evidence against it in print that is easily accessible to anyone, and this legend began only thirty years after the event.[16]



[/ QUOTE ]

We've been down this road before, Txag. You see no reason to doubt stories from people written 2000 years ago who believed their neighbors were witches, people who were sick were likely possessed by Demons, etc. Yet, you have every reason to doubt it. This is where FAITH comes in to overrule REASON. Your Faith in the Superstitions of man from 2000 years ago.

[Ben K]

Nooooo!! I had an awesome post but my browser lost it.

Txag007, you'll have to wait for when I get back for pub, or tomorrow. I have a couple of points on this!

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This might seem like a silly question, but what is all of this discussion based on?


Clearly, being logically consistent within its own fantasy world... [is] no basis for a philosophical discussion unless it were nothing but a hypothetical academic exercise...

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree: testing its consistency is one way to work towards determining whether or not Christianity is the "fantasy world" you believe it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I can create any number of internally consistent fantasy worlds each of which have no more material chance of being real than an inconsistent one.

It would be like saying that since the Star Trek 'reality' is internally more consistent than the Biblical 'reality', it is (materially) more likely to actually be in existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Star Trek is undisputedly made up. "Biblical 'reality'" may also be made up, but it isn't undisputedly so, and I'm inclined to test it to see what I can find out.

Also, if I were concerned about the "Star Trek is reality" possibility, my first question would have been titled, "Wesley Crusher vs. the perfect love of God". Whereupon all Trekkers (excepting maybe a few die-hards who have taught themselves to speak Klingon) would have hung up their ears and given up convention pilgrimmages forever.

-Jogger

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think in the vast majority of cases this is not true.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't believe the more believable story of Caesar, you'd certainly have to laugh at the idea of taking the Bible seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are in effect saying that either he did a good job of debunking the resurrection, and therefore the resurrection should be disbelieved, or that he did a bad job of debunking it by using a dubious comparison, which should in turn increase your scepticism about the resurrection. C'mon: are you analyzing critically or interpreting the Rorschach?

[txag007]

Kurto, this is circumstantial! It has little (if anything) to do with the resurrection itself, and Carrier only included it as introductory material. Surely even you must realize that this is not the "strength of his arguments".

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Many of the theists who suggest this fail to realize that many of us were believers who... and the more we looked the more we realized the Bible did not true.

We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming I'm a theist. IMO the Bible doesn't have to come from God in order for me to apply some of it's teachings to my life. I actually do this for a lot of religious faiths.

[Taraz]

And, txag you didn't answer my questions about the validity of different interpretations.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think in the vast majority of cases this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admittedly haven't had the means or opportunity to quiz most atheists. But there have been numerous atheists on this forum who have shared similar experiences.

Most atheists whom I've met (granted my experience is limited) were all raised in religious households. I actually personally know ONE atheist who was raised in an atheist household.

Perhaps you can elaborate on exactly what you think is untrue and why you think that is the case.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if you are suggesting internal consistency as an indicator of existence, are you actively accepting internal inconsitency as evidence that something is unlikley to exist?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes to everything after the second comma. No to everything before it.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Kurto, this is circumstantial! It has little (if anything) to do with the resurrection itself, and Carrier only included it as introductory material. Surely even you must realize that this is not the "strength of his arguments".

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary. Showing that it is typical of people of the period to be uneducated, superstitious and unskeptical is completely relevent in examining the texts of a story that makes claims that sound like the ramblings of uneducated, superstitious and unskeptical people.

Humor me.... explain to me why you should give any credence to the stories of people who believed that sickness was as likely to be demonic possession as opposed to simple virus. People who believed in magic and witchcraft as opposed to simpler explanations.

There is NO credibility to the people who tell the story.

I could go point by point of his entire essay and ask you to address each one but I've never seen you ever adequately even explain the above...

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Many of the theists who suggest this fail to realize that many of us were believers who... and the more we looked the more we realized the Bible did not true.

We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming I'm a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I didn't assume you were a theist. I was referring to Txag, not you, when I suggested that theists failed to realize that we have looked at the Bible.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO the Bible doesn't have to come from God in order for me to apply some of it's teachings to my life. I actually do this for a lot of religious faiths.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think many non-theists find things of value in the Bible. I am merely pointing out that reading the Bible does not mean we'll find the same truths that the Christians constantly suggest. Reading the Bible does not lead all to the conclusion that its true... that there is a God, etc. As the Bible Reading Club on this forum showed... many read it and were more put off then they were before studying it.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I think many non-theists find things of value in the Bible. I am merely pointing out that reading the Bible does not mean we'll find the same truths that the Christians constantly suggest. Reading the Bible does not lead all to the conclusion that its true... that there is a God, etc. As the Bible Reading Club on this forum showed... many read it and were more put off then they were before studying it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think it is kind of silly to be put off by the Bible though. I can see why you would think it's terrible that people believe it is the infallible word of God though.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think in the vast majority of cases this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admittedly haven't had the means or opportunity to quiz most atheists. But there have been numerous atheists on this forum who have shared similar experiences.

Most atheists whom I've met (granted my experience is limited) were all raised in religious households. I actually personally know ONE atheist who was raised in an atheist household.

Perhaps you can elaborate on exactly what you think is untrue and why you think that is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe very few people look deeply into religion. Which is to say, I don't think most atheists (and incidentally, I think calling onesself an atheist actually requires more faith than calling onesself an agnostic) have become atheists because they've looked. As to why I think this? There are several reasons.

[dknightx]

let me say a couple things about biblical interpretation. What does it mean when there is a difference in interpretation between atheists and theists? Well you'll have to understand that christians believe that their interpretations are God-inspired, meaning, they reached that interpretation through many hours of praying, meditation, study, research, etc, etc. Can you say you have done the same? Of course not, because unless you honestly believe that there is a God, how can ask to be inspired by Him? So this is where the division occurs. Atheists (or basically anyone who denies the existance of the Christian God), refuse to believe hat Christian interpretation can be God-inspired, because they don't believe in such a God! Merely, reading the bible and trying to disect it doesnt always "work":

"At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, "I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight." -- Luke 10:21
"Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything." -- 2 Timothy 2:7

So, in a nutshell: Christians believe their interpretation to be God inspired, and therefore "right". Atheists believe that Christians are delusional and refuse to accept their "god-inspired" intepretation.

[dknightx]

Now the next question is, how do we resolve differences in interpretation between different Christian denominations? I mean, they all can't be God-inspired ... right? This is probably a question i'm not very qualified to answer, but i'll give it a shot (to entertain you guys).

Let me start by saying that, in my opinion (and the opinion of many church leaders today), the current state of Christianity (in NA and Europe) today is very poor. Why? I mean you can go to many churches and take a look at what is going on: greed, selfishness, lies, deceit, fear mongering, etc, etc. The status of today's "church" is nothing like what God/Jesus intended. So what's my point? My point is that so many people have drifted so far away from God that we don't know who to believe. If you look at the protestant reform, why did it come about? It came about because of the corruption of the Catholic church at the time ... and through that reform, many MANY truths and understandings about the bible came about. And the thing is, even in the 20th century, many NEW understandings about the Bible have been discovered. I can't really go into depth about this because, as I stated earlier, I am not really qualified at this point (I haven't done enough study on this subject yet). So when people break away from corruption, and really focus on God, that is when true understanding is achieved.

So, briefly, whats my point? Basically, with Christianity in its current state, its not suprising we find many different interpretations about various things. Of course as txag pointed out earlier, most of these disagreements are about things NOT written in the bible, but even these things can, and should be "God-inspired". In addition, there are plenty of things in the Bible that are not fully understood ... and will someday be revealed to those that God wants to entrust it to.

[txag007]

Was Paul uneducated, superstitious, and unskeptical?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Was Paul uneducated, superstitious, and unskeptical?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but he started suffering from mental delusions. He heard voices. Too much time in the sun without a hat, perhaps.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think in the vast majority of cases this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are almost certainly wrong.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think in the vast majority of cases this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admittedly haven't had the means or opportunity to quiz most atheists. But there have been numerous atheists on this forum who have shared similar experiences.

Most atheists whom I've met (granted my experience is limited) were all raised in religious households. I actually personally know ONE atheist who was raised in an atheist household.

Perhaps you can elaborate on exactly what you think is untrue and why you think that is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe very few people look deeply into religion. Which is to say, I don't think most atheists (and incidentally, I think calling onesself an atheist actually requires more faith than calling onesself an agnostic) have become atheists because they've looked. As to why I think this? There are several reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, now I sort of wished I hadn't replied to your previous post. Seriously, you are trotting out the "it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist" card? Thats a fantastic strawman, but I must ask: Why MORE faith? Shouldn't it be less, or at least the same amount? By the way, this is entirely hypothetical, since as I've said many times before, there are almost no atheists who have faith that no God exists.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think in the vast majority of cases this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admittedly haven't had the means or opportunity to quiz most atheists. But there have been numerous atheists on this forum who have shared similar experiences.

Most atheists whom I've met (granted my experience is limited) were all raised in religious households. I actually personally know ONE atheist who was raised in an atheist household.

Perhaps you can elaborate on exactly what you think is untrue and why you think that is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe very few people look deeply into religion. Which is to say, I don't think most atheists (and incidentally, I think calling onesself an atheist actually requires more faith than calling onesself an agnostic) have become atheists because they've looked. As to why I think this? There are several reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate the word atheist. It shouldn't even exist. We don't need a term for people who do not believe in things for which there is no evidence for to begin with. You wouldn't call someone a non-astrologist, or anti-tooth fairy.

Very few people claim to believe God does NOT exist! They simply have no (or not sufficient), reason to hold such a belief. I'm a non-believer in gods, just as I'm a non-believer in numerology. I just don't have to try so hard to convince people that seat #7 isn't really the luckiest seat at the table.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think in the vast majority of cases this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admittedly haven't had the means or opportunity to quiz most atheists. But there have been numerous atheists on this forum who have shared similar experiences.

Most atheists whom I've met (granted my experience is limited) were all raised in religious households. I actually personally know ONE atheist who was raised in an atheist household.

Perhaps you can elaborate on exactly what you think is untrue and why you think that is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe very few people look deeply into religion. Which is to say, I don't think most atheists (and incidentally, I think calling onesself an atheist actually requires more faith than calling onesself an agnostic) have become atheists because they've looked. As to why I think this? There are several reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate the word atheist. It shouldn't even exist. We don't need a term for people who do not believe in things for which there is no evidence for to begin with. You wouldn't call someone a non-astrologist, or anti-tooth fairy.

Very few people claim to believe God does NOT exist! They simply have no (or not sufficient), reason to hold such a belief. I'm a non-believer in gods, just as I'm a non-believer in numerology. I just don't have to try so hard to convince people that seat #7 isn't really the luckiest seat at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but that position is reasonable, and far more difficult to argue against. So, its easier if I just call you an atheist, pretend you close your eyes and have faith in the non-existence of God, and that you probably molest children.

[Ben K]

Lots of people dislike the term atheist especially since it can get you killed in some parts of the world including some places in the US.

You are a bright. A bright is someone who has a naturalistic world view, i.e. no supernatural god's required. There's no prescribed moral code attached although admittedly the word was made up and doesn't neccessarily mean you are clever (in the same sense that being gay (which I'm not) doesn't mean you are happy). See www.the-brights.net (http://www.the-brights.net)

[Ben K]

Right then Txag777, I've got a bit of time to reply. Thanks for the link. I'm not closed minded about all this and it's good to see a counter argument. I don't hold Carrier in high esteem, I only said he was a good historian, but anyway. There are two things in the article that stick out for this discussion:

Quick quote:"I have indicated that the evidence shows that it is a sound deduction that the Rubicon was crossed, that it is the only explanation that makes any sense: "we only have a sound logical deduction that the Rubicon was crossed corporately, and no guarantee (just a good likelihood) that Caesar crossed it as an individual."" Para 5 of the second section.

So Holding admits that Caesar crossing the Rubicon is the only explanation that makes sense. Caesar had the ability to cross the Rubicon and the evidence suggests he did. Contrast this with the resurrection and even though we can say there is equal evidence that it occurred (I think this is a bit generous but whatever), Jesus did not have the ability to resurrect. He had to rely on god to do it. God doesn't exist, therefore Jesus did not have the ability to resurrect even if there is evidence to say he did. So there was no resurrection.

In principle, for the Caesar event, nothing has been assumed and evidence for each part has part of the story has been gathered to make something reasonable. In the resurrection story, the existence of god with the power to resurrect someone has been assumed and then the rest of the evidence has been gathered. Do you agree this is a neccesary assumption for the resurrection? What evidence do you have that the assumption is satisfied?

The second thing was at the bottom of the article:

Quote: "Res ipsa loquitor as applied to Christ’s resurrection:

1. Dead bodies do not leave tombs in the absence of some agency affecting the removal.
2. The tomb was under God’s exclusive control, for it had been sealed, and Jesus, the sole occupant of it was dead.
3. The Romans and the Jewish religious leaders did not contribute to the removal of the body (they had been responsible for sealing and guarding the tomb to prevent anyone from stealing the body, and the disciples would not have stolen it, then prevaricated, and finally died for what they knew to be untrue.

Therefore, only God was in a position to empty the tomb, which He did, as Jesus Himself had predicted, by raising Him from the dead: “the events speaks for itself.”[52] "

Love this argument, it's so rubbish. Point 2 is clearly incorrect. The tomb was not under god's exclusive control, it could be opened at any time by humans should they wish to. Point 3 is purely an assumption. Namely that the disciples would not behave in the way that they subsequently did if they were responsible for moving Jesus from the tomb. You can't expect rational behaviouor from irrational people. Also, you don't know that the authorities kept the tomb sealed. We're quite happy to believe our current government can publicly do one thing while privately acting to undermine it, why not the authorities in Jesus' time? To use the first quote, the supernatural event of the resurection is not the only explanation that makes any sense. In fact, it doesn't make any sense because it requires supernatural powers for which there is no evidence yet.

I think that above answers your question about devaluing the resurrection, especially the bit about unstated assumptions from the first quotation.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think in the vast majority of cases this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]You are almost certainly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. I would agree if extremely casual examination counts as looking.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate the word atheist. It shouldn't even exist. We don't need a term for people who do not believe in things for which there is no evidence for to begin with. You wouldn't call someone a non-astrologist, or anti-tooth fairy.

Very few people claim to believe God does NOT exist! They simply have no (or not sufficient), reason to hold such a belief. I'm a non-believer in gods, just as I'm a non-believer in numerology. I just don't have to try so hard to convince people that seat #7 isn't really the luckiest seat at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is evidence for the existence of God. Certainly there is plenty of eyewitness testimony on the subject, whether or not you believe it is solid. Aside from this, the unmoved-mover ideas of Aristotle and Acquinas are logically persuasive, at least as to the existence of something capable of creating matter.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, you are trotting out the "it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist" card?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Read my post again.

[ QUOTE ]
...there are no atheists who have faith that no God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
a·the·ist / Pronunciation Key - [ey-thee-ist] –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. [emphasis mine -Jogger]
Source: dictionary.com

ag·nos·tic / Pronunciation Key - [ag-nos-tik] –noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Source: dictionary.com

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus did not have the ability to resurrect. He had to rely on god to do it. God doesn't exist, therefore Jesus did not have the ability to resurrect even if there is evidence to say he did. So there was no resurrection...In the resurrection story, the existence of god with the power to resurrect someone has been assumed and then the rest of the evidence has been gathered. Do you agree this is a neccesary assumption for the resurrection?


[/ QUOTE ]
The existence of God is not a necessary assumption for a rational analysis of the resurrection. The point of the Caesar analogy is that the same rationale that leads one to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon (especially if the individual version is used) can be used to show that Jesus rose from the dead. Obviously, Jesus could not have risen from the dead if there is no god, but to immediately dismiss the resurrection on the belief that God doesn't exist would defeat the purpose of the analysis.

[ QUOTE ]
Point 2 is clearly incorrect. The tomb was not under god's exclusive control, it could be opened at any time by humans should they wish to.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you read the entire piece to which I linked, you will notice that <u>The Civil War</u> does not contain a direct quote from Caesar that he crossed the Rubicon. Rather, it contains quotes that he at one time was south of the Rubicon and at another time was north of it. Yes, it is rational from that to assume that he crossed it at some point. Using that same logic, the tomb of Jesus was being guarded by Roman soldiers. It was common for Roman soldiers to suffer the death penalty should they allow a prisoner or something they were guarding to escape. So it is unlikely they would have just let anybody open the tomb. Also, do you know how the tomb was sealed? A large stone over the entrance; too big for one man to move. Anyone who tried to open the tomb would have had to bring enough manpower to do it. It would not have been a quick, silent thing. So to say that they tomb could have been opened at anytime by anyone should they wish to is clearly incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
Point 3 is purely an assumption. Namely that the disciples would not behave in the way that they subsequently did if they were responsible for moving Jesus from the tomb. You can't expect rational behaviouor from irrational people.

[/ QUOTE ]
The disciples behavior before the resurrection had been quite rational. When Jesus was arrested, they were scared (for themselves). Peter denied knowing Him. After the crucifixion and burial, they fled. Scattered. It was over. Done. Something changed to bring them back together. Something also changed internally to give them the courage to preach in the face of danger and ultimately die for their belief. What was it? Would they have died for what they knew to be a lie? If they had stolen the body (see above concerning the Roman soldiers), disposed of the body, and started spreading lies in the face of death, what would have caused this irrational behavior? Either the Resurrection was true or they all obtained the same mental disease at the same time.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you don't know that the authorities kept the tomb sealed. We're quite happy to believe our current government can publicly do one thing while privately acting to undermine it, why not the authorities in Jesus' time?

[/ QUOTE ]
What would be their motivation for doing so? They were trying to squash what they saw as the Christian rebellion. Why would they spur it on by stealing the body of Jesus? That doesn't make any sense. It would be easier to believe that Caesar walked the bank of the Rubicon past its source, crossed there and walked back on the other side!

[ QUOTE ]
To use the first quote, the supernatural event of the resurection is not the only explanation that makes any sense. In fact, it doesn't make any sense because it requires supernatural powers for which there is no evidence yet.


[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you had your mind made up before you began the investigation.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Was Paul uneducated, superstitious, and unskeptical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly by today's standards.

[Ben K]

I think we can drop the second quotation I made from that piece. Not because it's an unworthy discussion but because there are more interesting things to be discussing. I would note that it was not applied to Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, more to demonstrate how "the evidence speaks for itself" is applied to the resurrection. Also, note that I said that humans could open the tomb and this is true because humans did open the tomb so my comment about point 2 stands. And as point 2 fails, the line of arguement fails and the evidence for the resurrection fails to speak for itself.

Anyway, (though I know I did sort of reply on the second quotation, respond if you wish) onto more interesting things.

We're working on sensible explanations for events. Despite personal doubts, let's say that the crossing and resurrection have equally valid evidence for their occurance. The Rubicon crossing is a sensible explanation of the information we have. There are no hidden assumptions and absolutely nothing that manifestly prohibits the action that we've proposed. However, the same simply doesn't hold true for the resurrection namely,the natural laws of the universe prohibit the resurrection. So you need something outside the natural laws to allow it to happen and you need to have a positive confirmation of it. In other words you need to show that god exists for the resurrection to be possible but you don't have that. You have lots of counters to disproofs that show, in spite of evolution or whatever, but showing up the flaw in a disproof is not the same thing as saying something is proved. Do you understand this?

If I said Caesar went on holiday to Jamaica just before crossing the river, you could easily provide a disproof of this and I could easily point out that it's still possible he went there. Having hit that dead end, you wouldn't then allow me to say that because Caesar went to Jamaica, he crossed the river. You'd reply with, whatever the reason Caesar crossed the river, it isn't because he went to Jamaica because my earlier disproof shows that to be highly unlikely. I would need to show that he did go to Jamaica and provide good evidence that this was the reason he then crossed the river. Similarly, god is a requirement of the resurrection but there's nothing to say he existed to be able to take part. We have his motive (well, one's been given to him if he exists to have one) to resurrecting Jesus, now we just need to show he did in fact exist (v go to Jamaica).

Not good analogy but I hope you can see through the flaws to the underlying point. My mind's not closed on any particular matter. However, the more I read defenses of disproofs rather than active proofs, the more certain I become that believers are fighting a rear-guard action.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Was Paul uneducated, superstitious, and unskeptical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly by today's standards.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Please clarify. How so?

Do you know Paul's (or Saul's) background? With regard to Judaism and religious matters, he was extremely educated -- even by today's standards.

What do you know about Paul's superstitions? I would guess that you don't know much. I don't.

Paul (or Saul) was extremely skeptical about Christianity and the resurrection. So much so that he supervised the killing of Christians. How can you say that he was unskeptical by today's standards?

Certainly? I think not.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Point 3 is purely an assumption. Namely that the disciples would not behave in the way that they subsequently did if they were responsible for moving Jesus from the tomb. You can't expect rational behaviouor from irrational people.

[/ QUOTE ]
The disciples behavior before the resurrection had been quite rational. When Jesus was arrested, they were scared (for themselves). Peter denied knowing Him. After the crucifixion and burial, they fled. Scattered. It was over. Done. Something changed to bring them back together. Something also changed internally to give them the courage to preach in the face of danger and ultimately die for their belief. What was it? Would they have died for what they knew to be a lie? If they had stolen the body (see above concerning the Roman soldiers), disposed of the body, and started spreading lies in the face of death, what would have caused this irrational behavior? Either the Resurrection was true or they all obtained the same mental disease at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any evidence that the disciples' behavior was rational APART from the bible? Any evidence of the Peter thrice denial? Do you see why we aren't allowed to use the bible as evidence for things that the bible claim to be true?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, note that I said that humans could open the tomb and this is true because humans did open the tomb so my comment about point 2 stands.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which humans opened the tomb? The tomb was open when the women arrived. There is no record of any humans opening the tomb. That's not to say it wasn't possible, only that your comment that "humans did open the tomb" isn't true. When you take the Roman soldiers into account, it is very unlikely that the tomb would have been opened by any human.

[ QUOTE ]
the natural laws of the universe prohibit the resurrection. So you need something outside the natural laws to allow it to happen and you need to have a positive confirmation of it. In other words you need to show that god exists for the resurrection to be possible but you don't have that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can see I'm not going to convince you on this point, but I'll say it again. For the resurrection to have happened, it is necessary for God to exist. No kidding. But to dismiss the resurrection on the grounds that the existence of God has not yet been proven in your mind is simply a way to wiggle out of the actual analysis of the resurrection.

[ QUOTE ]
However, the more I read defenses of disproofs rather than active proofs, the more certain I become that believers are fighting a rear-guard action.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've said this before: If you are waiting for someone to prove God's existence to you before you will believe, you will never come to God. Are you looking for reasons to believe, or are you searching for reasons not to believe? Christians take this approach: We say, "God, I can't prove that you exist and that Jesus died for my sins, but I believe it." We then look at the world and history and literature and see if an honest analysis of these things is consistent with the Bible. The other approach, taken by many on these forums, is to look at the Bible or to analyze what Christians say with an eye to criticize. People who do this are searching for reasons not to believe. Excuses, if you will. But it's done in the guise of honest analysis. Sometimes it actually is honest analysis, but much of the time a person's mind is already made up.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get into an argument over specifics really, I just want to know how/why I should believe your interpretation over someone else's.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking you to believe my interpretation. I'm asking you to go and look for yourself using the same methods of analysis you would use to evaluate any other issue, problem, or historical document.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I have done this and reached a different conclusion...I also believe that early Christian authors believed that they needed to embellish certain stories and exaggerate certain things to have a greater effect on their audiences...Why is my interpretation less valid?

[/ QUOTE ]
On what do you base this interpretation?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Was Paul uneducated, superstitious, and unskeptical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly by today's standards.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Please clarify. How so?

Do you know Paul's (or Saul's) background? With regard to Judaism and religious matters, he was extremely educated -- even by today's standards.

What do you know about Paul's superstitions? I would guess that you don't know much. I don't.

Paul (or Saul) was extremely skeptical about Christianity and the resurrection. So much so that he supervised the killing of Christians. How can you say that he was unskeptical by today's standards?

Certainly? I think not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please compare the science of today with what was known then.

No matter what Paul's education he cannot have the benefits of our better understanding of the world over the past couple of centuries. Therefore, he cannot be educated and understand the world as people do today.

Did Paul believe in Supernatural beings? Was Paul likely to believe visions are real? Did Paul believe in spirits? If yes... then it is probably safe to say he would be superstitious by today's standards.

Its more puzzling to me that you actually believe a man living 2000 years ago, in a time where it was perfectly normal for people to have supernatural beliefs, had no understanding of modern science, etc... would look at Christianity with the same skepticism and understanding as people with nearly 2000 years of advances in education, science, etc.

Mind boggling.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get into an argument over specifics really, I just want to know how/why I should believe your interpretation over someone else's.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking you to believe my interpretation. I'm asking you to go and look for yourself using the same methods of analysis you would use to evaluate any other issue, problem, or historical document.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I have done this and reached a different conclusion...I also believe that early Christian authors believed that they needed to embellish certain stories and exaggerate certain things to have a greater effect on their audiences...Why is my interpretation less valid?

[/ QUOTE ]
On what do you base this interpretation?

[/ QUOTE ]

One can read quite a few comparisions of the Biblical stories and see how they are embellished.

The story of Jesus' Ressurection changes and appears more embellished from one book to the next.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate the word atheist. It shouldn't even exist. We don't need a term for people who do not believe in things for which there is no evidence for to begin with. You wouldn't call someone a non-astrologist, or anti-tooth fairy.

Very few people claim to believe God does NOT exist! They simply have no (or not sufficient), reason to hold such a belief. I'm a non-believer in gods, just as I'm a non-believer in numerology. I just don't have to try so hard to convince people that seat #7 isn't really the luckiest seat at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is evidence for the existence of God. Certainly there is plenty of eyewitness testimony on the subject, whether or not you believe it is solid. Aside from this, the unmoved-mover ideas of Aristotle and Acquinas are logically persuasive, at least as to the existence of something capable of creating matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can make the same claim for any number of similar dogmatic beliefs such as astrology, witchcraft, and (most importantly), any number of religions with belief in different gods.

Aristotle, Acquinqas, Socrates, were great thinkers. But they also lived in a world where it couldn't be fathomed what could possibly cause a tsunami, or a volcanoe to erupt. It was an altogether different world back then. You could even make the case that belief in a supreme being was a perfectly logical conclusion. Today that is simply not the case.

[Lestat]

This is an excellent post! Unfortunately, it will be time wasted on people like txag.

[Lestat]

Wow, txag I'm impressed! You at least tried to tackle some questions head on! Bravo! Now if you'll only continue the dialog with Ben K to it's logical conclusion. Is it possible progress can be made?!!!

[Lestat]

I'm starting to wonder if someone else has taken over your account and doing your bidding. Seriously, I'm very glad that you are attempting to logically refute arguments (and doing a decent job, if still not pursuasive).

I disagree with your last paragraph. I have never looked for reasons NOT to believe. I just don't have enough reasons TO believe. Keep up this kind of dialog and I might change my mind (or you'll at least have a chance to win some arguments). It's when you resort to asking silly questions, because you have no refutation when presented with solid logic, that you become completely dismissed as a loon. I definitely don't agree with you yet, but I can at least start respecting some of the stuff you're writing.

[txag007]

And yet you give no examples.

[txag007]

Those questions have a purpose, Lestat.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet you give no examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if I have the time later I'll look em up for you. I'm honestly surprised that you aren't aware of these differences off the top of your head. I kind of thought you knew the Bible. Shows I was wrong there!

Things like... in one book Jesus appears alone... in another he's with angels, etc.

Though I can't quote off the top of my head, I'm aware of these differences. If you aren't, you should really read your Bible. Me thinks as one of the hardcore Christians on this forum, it would look better for you if you were aware of this stuff.

[txag007]

I didn't say I wasn't aware of the differences, but how can I refute/explain something when you only speak in generalities?

[Ben K]

On tomb opening ability: Well, I stand corrected about evidence of humans opening the tomb. I thought the bible said they did after someone had a vision that Jesus had resurrected and they persuaded the romans to check. Oh well. It's no biggie, I mean the guards would be able to say what happened right? By the way, does the bible describe how the guards were treated after the tomb was discovered to be open and Jesus gone? You mentioned earlier that they were at risk of death for failing.

On a proof requirement before resurrection belief: This is no wiggle. If Caesar died 2 months before the time he crossed the river but all the same evidence existed you'd seriously challenge any assertion that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. There's an assumption underlying Caesar crossing the Rubicon that is he is alive and able to do so. We haven't challenged it or mentioned it because we've got reliable post event evidence that he was alive but the detail is still a requirement of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Likewise, god's existence is central to the resurrection. I am challenging that because we have no reliable evidence (either prior or post event) of his existence. You simply cannot conduct a thorough rational exploration of any one event without considering all the assumptions underlying the conclusions.

We can analyse the symbolic and cultural effects of the resurrection and the rest but, in this day and age where we have determined that supernatural events just don't happen, surely you can see that the next step is to question historical supernatural events? Especially since the after effects of long past supernatural events includes a lot of nastiness in it's name (no matter how much you discredit the individuals). I know there's good stuff to religion and I'm not specifically targetting Chritianity.

On your final paragraph: I'm not waiting for anyone to prove to me god exists. You're starting from the god exists assumption again. A (nearly) complete explanation of the world around us can be given without reference to supernatural beings. At no point in that explanation do I need to abandon rational thinking and merely accept. I can question the lot and it all stands up to rational analysis. I know there are bits which are still unknown but that's part of the fun. I know science will be wrong about some things but that's cool too. The approach you suggest is to suspend your intellect and believe, followed by careful rational analysis. The very core of your belief system is irrational. I think that sounds like an attack but I don't mean it to attack you personally, more the irrational process you're supporting.

Thanks for the nice comment Lestat!

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say I wasn't aware of the differences, but how can I refute/explain something when you only speak in generalities?

[/ QUOTE ]

Aahh. You are aware of the differences. The way you write you often appear to not know some very basic things. Is it really a generality to say that there are differences in the stories? Off the top of your head, can't you recite some of the differences? In the different accounts, don't they vary by who was there when he was seen? Aren't some cases it simply Jesus while in others he's accompanied by Angels? It wasn't clear in my post that I was referring to differences like this? (I think you like to be coy on purpose... to what goal, I don't know.)

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the bible said they did after someone had a vision that Jesus had resurrected and they persuaded the romans to check.

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[ QUOTE ]
Likewise, god's existence is central to the resurrection. I am challenging that because we have no reliable evidence (either prior or post event) of his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. There is evidence that God exists. There is evidence that the Bible is true. There is evidence that the resurrection occured. To say (and I hear this a lot) that there is no reliable evidence simply is not true.

[ QUOTE ]
You simply cannot conduct a thorough rational exploration of any one event without considering all the assumptions underlying the conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. The problem I have is dismissing the conclusion because of the assumption. Of course God would have to exist for the resurrection to occur. Nobody is saying otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
but, in this day and age where we have determined that supernatural events just don't happen

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I think they do happen today. I also think there is always a way to explain each as a 'coincidence'.

[ QUOTE ]
You're starting from the god exists assumption again.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I am. That's what I believe. I also believe that an honest evaluation of the world around me fits this worldview perfectly.

[ QUOTE ]
A (nearly) complete explanation of the world around us can be given without reference to supernatural beings. At no point in that explanation do I need to abandon rational thinking and merely accept.

[/ QUOTE ]
The assumption that you need to abandon rational thinking in order to accept God's existence is false.

[ QUOTE ]
The approach you suggest is to suspend your intellect and believe, followed by careful rational analysis. The very core of your belief system is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]
Choosing to believe does not mean suspending your intellect. God gave us minds. He expects us to use them.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the nice comment Lestat!

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, Lestat's cool.

[txag007]

Why are you asking me? You seemed so sure of the embellishments earlier. Simple differences in Gospel accounts do not automatically mean that the story was embellished in later years.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you asking me? You seemed so sure of the embellishments earlier. Simple differences in Gospel accounts do not automatically mean that the story was embellished in later years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why am I asking you what? I asked a handful of questions. I don't which question you are referring to when you ask "why am I asking me?"

[ QUOTE ]
You seemed so sure of the embellishments earlier

[/ QUOTE ]

I am quite sure. I am at work and don't have them memorized. If this is what you were asking "why am I asking you"... I guess I was asking you because I thought you could name some of the differences off the top of your head... being such a studious Christian. Again, I am constantly overestimating how well you know the Bible and will try to rectify that in the future.

(though to be honest... I think you know and like to be coy. In the past you've acted ignorant of things people have mentioned until they did the research at which point it was clear you knew to what they were referring.)

So... are you truly ignorant to what I'm referring to or are you just playing more of your usual games?

Anyhow- I believe Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" outlines many of the differences between the portrayal of the resurrection in the different Gospels... but I don't have access to that book at the moment. I have seen other articles outlining the differences (a quick search found a little bit here..... Contradictions (http://jesus.com.au/html/page/contradictions)

If it was necessary, one could simply answer the questions here and see how the story changed....

[ QUOTE ]
How many women went to the tomb?
When was it? Before or after dawn?
What happened at the tomb? Who else was present? What was said and done?
Who did the women tell, and when? Did they believe them? Which disciples then went to the tomb?
Did Jesus tell them to wait in Jerusalem or go to Galilee?
How many times did Jesus appear and in what order? Who did he appear to first? Where did Jesus' ascension occur? Who was there?
Can you construct a plausible timeline combining these accounts, or does this seem impossible?


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Simple differences in Gospel accounts do not automatically mean that the story was embellished in later years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noone said it automatically meant that. But an argument can be made that the later books embellished the source material.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
You can make the same claim for any number of similar dogmatic beliefs such as astrology, witchcraft, and (most importantly), any number of religions with belief in different gods.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Aristotle, Acquinqas, Socrates, were great thinkers. But they also lived in a world where it couldn't be fathomed what could possibly cause a tsunami, or a volcanoe to erupt. It was an altogether different world back then. You could even make the case that belief in a supreme being was a perfectly logical conclusion. Today that is simply not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
I find the unmoved mover idea compelling.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. The false assumption in this question is that Hell is a place of infinite suffering. It is not. It is a place of finite suffering in proportion to your sins, in the absence of time. So it is perfectly just.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sez you. Any support for this in the Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would you want support from the Bible when you yourself claim that it is open to subjective interpretation?

Or do you admit that the Bible is authoritative?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate the word atheist. It shouldn't even exist. We don't need a term for people who do not believe in things for which there is no evidence for to begin with. You wouldn't call someone a non-astrologist, or anti-tooth fairy.

Very few people claim to believe God does NOT exist! They simply have no (or not sufficient), reason to hold such a belief. I'm a non-believer in gods, just as I'm a non-believer in numerology. I just don't have to try so hard to convince people that seat #7 isn't really the luckiest seat at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is evidence for the existence of God. Certainly there is plenty of eyewitness testimony on the subject, whether or not you believe it is solid. Aside from this, the unmoved-mover ideas of Aristotle and Acquinas are logically persuasive, at least as to the existence of something capable of creating matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can make the same claim for any number of similar dogmatic beliefs such as astrology, witchcraft, and (most importantly), any number of religions with belief in different gods.

Aristotle, Acquinqas, Socrates, were great thinkers. But they also lived in a world where it couldn't be fathomed what could possibly cause a tsunami, or a volcanoe to erupt. It was an altogether different world back then. You could even make the case that belief in a supreme being was a perfectly logical conclusion. Today that is simply not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does natural science in any way supersede philosophy? Why can our "enlightened, scientific" people not grasp Logical matters that were postulated in the middle ages?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
Peter666 in particular is quoting as a fact of Christianity a whole bunch of stuff that there is absolutely zero support for in the Bible.

But hey, welcome to Catholicism I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you an expert in Bible interpretation? Contradict any of the points I have made logically.

[CORed]

Well, IMO, you can't reconcile Christian theology with the notion that God is loving and just. The Bible contains story after story that demonstrates that God is cruel, petty, jealous, arbitrary, completely unfair and just plain mean. Saying that God is loving and just, when you present a very large book full of "evidence" to the contrary doesn't make any sense. I'm sure the believers will come up with all kinds of convoluted arguments to explain it all away. I'll be very surprised if any make the least bit of sense.

Hear is the skeptical poker players synopsis of Christianity:
We are playing in a rigged game. God has make a huge convoluted bunch of arbitrary and conflicting rules about what we eat, how we make love, how we treat each other, and how we must worship Him, but created us with natures that make it utterly impossible for any of us to actually live by these rules, even if we by some miracle managed to figure out what they all really mean. However, being the kind, just, loving God that he is, he gave us a cheat. He sent his son (or himself, or part of himself or some impossible combination of all of these things) to live among us and die (but not really die. He was resurrected) for our sins (not being able to beat the rigged game). All we have to do is believe in Jesus, and believe that he was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, and believe that he really is the son of God, part of God, and God himself, in spite of a lack of any kind of evidence that would be sufficient to get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and your sin of not being able to beat a rigged game will be forgiven, and you get to go to Heaven even though you really don't deserve to according to the rules of the rigged game.

Does it all make sense now?

Edit:
I'm not even going to attempt to explain the Holy Spirit and the Trinity, because they never even came as close to being understandable to me as the rest of the mess.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think in the vast majority of cases this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]You are almost certainly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. I would agree if extremely casual examination counts as looking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, as long as you get to define 'extremely casual.'

Hypothetical prop bet on average pages of Bible read for atheists versus Christians? Of course, when we read it we are so blinded by hate and rage at Christians that we only see the bad parts but still...

[Peter666]

"God is cruel, petty, jealous, arbitrary, completely unfair and just plain mean."

Whose standards of cruelty, pettiness...etc are we using to make this judgment?

[MidGe]

Our own humane standards, obviously not the abhorrent christian ones! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
Our own humane standards, obviously not the abhorrent christian ones! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Does "our own" include humanist anti Christians like Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our own humane standards, obviously not the abhorrent christian ones! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Does "our own" include humanist anti Christians like Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it does not include pathological cases or christians by what is to be read in what they consider the word of their god which stands very clearly as a pathological case too, if you are open-minded that is.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our own humane standards, obviously not the abhorrent christian ones! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Does "our own" include humanist anti Christians like Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler was quite Christian.

[Peter666]

"Hitler was quite Christian."

That's quite mad.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
"Hitler was quite Christian."

That's quite mad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes the truth can be maddening.

[ QUOTE ]
Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and microphones. Acclaimed Hitler biographer, John Toland, explains his heartlessness as follows: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god..."

Hitler's Germany amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church to blindly follow all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.

Hitler, like some of today's politicians and preachers, politicized "family values." He liked corporal punishment in home and in school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it. If past is prologue, we know what to expect if liberty becomes license.



[/ QUOTE ]

Do a search of Hitler + Religion and you can find many wonderful pro-religious speeches by Hitler.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our own humane standards, obviously not the abhorrent christian ones! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Does "our own" include humanist anti Christians like Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it does not include pathological cases or christians by what is to be read in what they consider the word of their god which stands very clearly as a pathological case too, if you are open-minded that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Hitler, Stalin, Zedong were not clinically insane. They were following a system of well thought out beliefs. Beliefs which were anti-Christian.

I am curious what the philosophical beliefs and ethics are of the anti-Christians posting here, since they find the Christian God to be so abhorrent.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Hitler was quite Christian.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

Keep trying. Some day, even if it's by accident, you'll get something right.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Hitler was quite Christian."

That's quite mad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes the truth can be maddening.

[ QUOTE ]
Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and microphones. Acclaimed Hitler biographer, John Toland, explains his heartlessness as follows: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god..."

Hitler's Germany amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church to blindly follow all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.

Hitler, like some of today's politicians and preachers, politicized "family values." He liked corporal punishment in home and in school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it. If past is prologue, we know what to expect if liberty becomes license.



[/ QUOTE ]

Do a search of Hitler + Religion and you can find many wonderful pro-religious speeches by Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler's SCIENTIFICALLY MOTIVATED, DARWINISTIC, NIETZSCHEAN PAGANISM was happy to use the practical and sane order of Religion to help organize society. For if it wasn't for religion and the monks of the Middle Ages promoting science and learning, apostates like Hitler and his ilk would be blubbering barbarian idiots unable to manipulate what was good into their own perverted visions.

And if John Toland thinks Hitler was in good standing with the Church of Rome, he is an idiot biographer and lucky to be making money off the ignorance of his poor readers.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Hitler was quite Christian."

That's quite mad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes the truth can be maddening.

[ QUOTE ]
Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and microphones. Acclaimed Hitler biographer, John Toland, explains his heartlessness as follows: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god..."

Hitler's Germany amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church to blindly follow all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.

Hitler, like some of today's politicians and preachers, politicized "family values." He liked corporal punishment in home and in school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it. If past is prologue, we know what to expect if liberty becomes license.



[/ QUOTE ]

Do a search of Hitler + Religion and you can find many wonderful pro-religious speeches by Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler's SCIENTIFICALLY MOTIVATED, DARWINISTIC, NIETZSCHEAN PAGANISM was happy to use the practical and sane order of Religion to help organize society. For if it wasn't for religion and the monks of the Middle Ages promoting science and learning, apostates like Hitler and his ilk would be blubbering barbarian idiots unable to manipulate what was good into their own perverted visions.

And if John Toland thinks Hitler was in good standing with the Church of Rome, he is an idiot biographer and lucky to be making money off the ignorance of his poor readers.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is that Hitler was a Christian like Mao, Stalin and the gang were secular humanists?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
But Hitler, Stalin, Zedong were not clinically insane. They were following a system of well thought out beliefs. Beliefs which were anti-Christian.

I am curious what the philosophical beliefs and ethics are of the anti-Christians posting here, since they find the Christian God to be so abhorrent.



[/ QUOTE ]

These concepts aren’t mutually exclusive. You can find the Christian God’s morality abhorrent and certain anti-Christians' morality abhorrent.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But Hitler, Stalin, Zedong were not clinically insane. They were following a system of well thought out beliefs. Beliefs which were anti-Christian.

I am curious what the philosophical beliefs and ethics are of the anti-Christians posting here, since they find the Christian God to be so abhorrent.



[/ QUOTE ]

These concepts aren’t mutually exclusive. You can find the Christian God’s morality abhorrent and certain anti-Christians morality abhorrent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I am dying to hear what is NOT abhorrent, and more importantly, the philosophical foundation of these ethics.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
... But Hitler, Stalin, Zedong were not clinically insane...

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, not by your standards perhaps, but definitely by mine. Maybe it is because I am NOT a christian that we have such a difference in standards. To me, psychiatrists and psychologists can stand on their forever, but saying that Stalin or Hitler were not certifiable, is absurd.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I am dying to hear what is NOT abhorrent, and more importantly, the philosophical foundation of these ethics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most people know what is good and what is bad.
The philosophical foundation for this is that we are pact animals that evolved to get along with each other. Our brains grew and as we gained an understanding of our own mortality we also gained a better sense of empathy with others.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I am dying to hear what is NOT abhorrent, and more importantly, the philosophical foundation of these ethics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most people know what is good and what is bad.
The philosophical foundation for this is that we are pact animals that evolved to get along with each other. Our brains grew and as we gained an understanding of our own mortality we also gained a better sense of empathy with others.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a missing link here between the growing understanding and empathy part vs. the ability to do what is bad.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I am dying to hear what is NOT abhorrent, and more importantly, the philosophical foundation of these ethics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most people know what is good and what is bad.
The philosophical foundation for this is that we are pact animals that evolved to get along with each other. Our brains grew and as we gained an understanding of our own mortality we also gained a better sense of empathy with others.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a missing link here between the growing understanding and empathy part vs. the ability to do what is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
not much of a missing link. We have all sorts of desires for things, sometimes they conflict with our morality and sometimes they overwhelm it.

That may be nothing to do with the Hitler type actions which he may have believed were good. I and most other people can still find those actions abhorant.

chez

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have looked. That is why we became atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think in the vast majority of cases this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]You are almost certainly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. I would agree if extremely casual examination counts as looking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, as long as you get to define 'extremely casual.'

Hypothetical prop bet on average pages of Bible read for atheists versus Christians? Of course, when we read it we are so blinded by hate and rage at Christians that we only see the bad parts but still...

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know how we could test it, but out of curiosity, what's your over/under for:
Biblical chapters (or books) read by American atheists/agnostics on average
Biblical chapters (or books) read by American lay Catholics on average
Biblical chapters (or books) read by American non-Catholic Christian laity on average

(Bible because that's the thread, and chapters or books rather than pages because there are different editions but I'd expect all will have the same chapter/book count.)

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Christians take this approach: We say, "God, I can't prove that you exist and that Jesus died for my sins, but I believe it." We then look at the world and history and literature and see if an honest analysis of these things is consistent with the Bible. The other approach, taken by many on these forums, is to look at the Bible or to analyze what Christians say with an eye to criticize. People who do this are searching for reasons not to believe. Excuses, if you will. But it's done in the guise of honest analysis. Sometimes it actually is honest analysis, but much of the time a person's mind is already made up.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the scientific method, and it's generally an excellent approach to analysis. The method you describe as being used by Christians is the less sceptical of the two, and thus the less likely to lead to rigorous conclusions in either direction.

Edit: the Christian method (as you describe it) is more likely to lead to an affirmative conclusion about the Bible, but the conclusion will be much weaker as a result of the approach

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. The false assumption in this question is that Hell is a place of infinite suffering. It is not. It is a place of finite suffering in proportion to your sins, in the absence of time. So it is perfectly just.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sez you. Any support for this in the Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would you want support from the Bible when you yourself claim that it is open to subjective interpretation?

Or do you admit that the Bible is authoritative?

[/ QUOTE ]
I suspect he wants you to support your claim Bibically not because he believes the Bible is authoritative, but because you do.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Hitler was quite Christian.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

Keep trying. Some day, even if it's by accident, you'll get something right.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the usual Notready response... all arrogance and rudeness, no substance. You represent yourself well.

I know, Notready, you have no use for facts and such but still...

[ QUOTE ]
Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth, and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church. The worst doctrines of that church never left him. He was steeped in its liturgy, which contained the words, "perfidious Jew." This hateful statement was not removed until 1961. Perfidy means treachery.

In his day, hatred of Jews was the norm. In great measure it was sponsored by the two major religions of Germany, Catholicism and Lutheranism. He greatly admired Martin Luther, who openly hated the Jews. Luther condemned the Catholic Church for its pretensions and corruption, but he supported the centuries of papal pogroms against the Jews. Luther said, "The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves," and "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them." "Ungodly wretches" he calls the Jews in his widely read Table Talk.

Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf. "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938.

Three years later he informed General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." He never left the church, and the church never left him. Great literature was banned by his church, but his miserable Mien Kampf never appeared on the Index of Forbidden Books.

He was not excommunicated or even condemned by his church. Popes, in fact, contracted with Hitler and his fascist friends Franco and Mussolini, giving them veto power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. The three thugs agreed to surtax the Catholics of their countries and send the money to Rome in exchange for making sure the state could control the church.

Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and microphones. Acclaimed Hitler biographer, John Toland, explains his heartlessness as follows: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god..."



[/ QUOTE ] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.html

How about this 1933 article-
[ QUOTE ]
HITLER AIMS BLOW AT 'GODLESS' MOVE
Chancellor's Forces Seek the Catholic Support for Latest Campaign



BERLIN, Feb. 23 (AP)--A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces. They struck at two of his formidable opponents in the March 5 elections, the first at communists and the latter at the allied Catholic parties.

Meanwhile five more persons were killed and scores were injured Tuesday night in the incipient civil war which has been waging since Hitler's rise to power. This brought the number of deaths in political clashes since the first of the year, when Hitler began negotiations for the chancellorship, to about 70.

A campaign against the "godless movement" was announced by Bernard Rust, nazi commissioner for education and culture in Prussia, in an address Tuesday night before students at the technical university here. He said the details would be revealed in the next few days. In his speech opening the campaign for the reichstag and Prussian diet elections, Hitler attacked communists for the spread of atheism.

An appeal to Catholic nazis was printed Wednesday in Hitler's Voelkischer Beobachter, assailing the Catholic centrist and populist parties. It recalled the papal encyclical of January 9, 1928, which admonished priests to serve the religious interests of the nation and not to affiliate with political parties. Hitler, himself, is a Catholic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooops, Notready misses reality again. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]


I have often reflected, wistfully, on how much happier modern history might have been had Hitler been brought up as an atheist, an agnostic, or, at least, a Unitarian. Born and bred a Catholic, he grew up in a religion and in a culture that was anti-semitic, and in persecuting Jews, he repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the "Lord's work."

You will find it in Mein Kampf.- "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."....

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing as a Catholic. The Catholic press In Germany was eager to curry his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for his excommunication. Religions encourage their followers to hold authority in unquestioning respect; this is what makes devout religionists such wonderful dupes for dictators.

When Hitler narrowly escaped assassination in Munich in November, 1939, he gave the credit to providence. "Now I am completely content," he exclaimed. "The fact that I left the Burgerbraukeller earlier than usual is a corroboration of Providence's intention to let me reach my goal." Catholic newspapers throughout the Reich echoed this, declaring that it was a miraculous working of providence that had protected their Fuhrer. One cardinal, Michael Faulhaber, sent a telegram instructing that a Te Deum be sung in the cathedral of Munich, "to thank Divine Providence in the name of the archdiocese for the Fuhrer's fortunate escape. " The Pope also sent his special personal congratulations!

Later the Pope was to publicly describe Hitler's opposition to Russia as a "high-minded gallantry in defense of the foundation of Christian culture. " ....

Biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god - so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.

War's causes, of course, are complex, but it would be difficult to overestimate the disastrous role religion played in World War 11. Distrust, fear and hatred of Jews was a lesson Hitler learned early in life. It was taught by his church and reinforced by his culture. It became his obsession, his version of "the Lord's work."


[/ QUOTE ]

full article Hitler and the Church (http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/againstreligion/id13.html)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

full article Hitler and the Church


[/ QUOTE ]


I have no doubt Hitler was Catholic. What I claim is he wasn't Christian. The bottom line is, whatever he claimed, whatever he actually believed, even if he somehow had genuine faith in Christ(extremely unlikely), he in no way practiced New Testament Christianity, he was not a disciple of Christ, nothing he did as dictator(other than normal affairs of state) was in furtherence of any mandate or authorization found in Scripture. Politicians almost always pay lip service to the prevailing religious views of their countries and the religious authorities of those countries almost always claim the political leaders as one of theirs. Lincoln was almost certainly an atheist but, though he never proclaimed he was Christian, he paid lip service to the idea of God, read and quoted the Bible, and was claimed by churches as one of theirs.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits".

John 13:35
" By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt Hitler was Catholic.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you have no doubt that Hitler was a Christian. As Catholic=Christian.

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is, whatever he claimed, whatever he actually believed, even if he somehow had genuine faith in Christ(extremely unlikely), he in no way practiced New Testament Christianity, he was not a disciple of Christ, nothing he did as dictator(other than normal affairs of state) was in furtherence of any mandate or authorization found in Scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was doing what he believed was right based on what he was taught in the church. I can quickly find you plenty of references including a Pope saying that anti-semitism was taught and in the hearts of Christians. It was taught in the Church.

Furthermore, there is scriptural support for all sorts of violence throughout the Old Testament.

At any rate- contrary to your insulting reply earlier, it was wrong for the earlier poster to try to classify Hitler as a Christian. His antisemitism was prevelent throughout Christian Europe. The Catholic church and the Pope himself stood behind Hitler at times DURING his worst. As I quoted above, the church itself characterized Hitler's work as advancing Christianity.

Granted, I don't think his brand of Christianity is probably far different then what I was taught. (though I recall my church had quite a few nice people who happen to be good Christian anti-semites) Regardless of my experience, Hitler believed his actions were in line with the teachings of his church and, apparently, the Catholic Church was on board somewhat.

At any rate- it puts your snide comments about how I'm always wrong into perspective, doesn't it?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no doubt Hitler was Catholic.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In other words, you have no doubt that Hitler was a Christian. As Catholic=Christian.


[/ QUOTE ]
That depends. I got into a spat with Bluffthis! about this some time ago. Being catholic (or a member of any other christian denomination) isn't sufficient to be a christian imo.

Bluffthis! thought I was repeating the view that catholics aren't christians which apparantly is a not an uncommon view in parts of America (I'd never heard this) but maybe it's a prevelant view in Notready's community.

or perhaps he just means, like me, that on the whole mass-murdering maniacs don't believe in the teachings of christ and hence are not christian.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

At any rate- it puts your snide comments about how I'm always wrong into perspective, doesn't it?


[/ QUOTE ]

No because as I tried to explain Catholic does not equal Christian. Nor does any other denomination.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, you have no doubt that Hitler was a Christian. As Catholic=Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you even read his post?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
That depends. I got into a spat with Bluffthis! about this some time ago. Being catholic (or a member of any other christian denomination) isn't sufficient to be a christian imo.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... part of the problem is that there is no consensus about what makes a person a Christian (or a good Christian).

In regards to Hitler... I've posted multiple essays from different sources which stated the belief that Hitler's anti-semitism was consistant with what was being taught in the Catholic Church at that time. There was even a quote in one of the sources I read (I don't recall if its in my earlier post or not) where one of the Popes acknowledges this anti-semitism as being in the hearts of the Christians.

I think its fair to say many of Hitler's actions do not fit with how most of us think Christians should act today... but that's hardly meaningful because the Church is not fixed. The inquisition had some of the most inhumane acts that people did to others... and I have little doubt that the practicitioners thought they were acting as good Christians.

More importantly- Whether a Christian today agrees with Hitler's conclusions... it would appear that Hitler at least THOUGHT he was acting consistantly with the teachings of his Church. One doesn't have to look that hard, at least in the Old Testament, to find scriptural support for barbarous acts. So though you and I may not focus on those parts of the Bible, that's not to say they are not part of Christianity.

[ QUOTE ]
Bluffthis! thought I was repeating the view that catholics aren't christians which apparantly is a not an uncommon view in parts of America (I'd never heard this) but maybe it's a prevelant view in Notready's community.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe Notready was saying Catholics aren't Christians. Though I definitely know some Christians (like my Born Again Brother) who believe only their particular brand of Christianity has 'got it right.'

[ QUOTE ]

or perhaps he just means, like me, that on the whole mass-murdering maniacs don't believe in the teachings of christ and hence are not christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe much killing by Christians has been done with the belief that they had God on their side. You and I may disagree that, if there was a God, he would be on Hitler's side.... but intellectually, he can still be a Christian. You and he may just differ on how to interpret key parts of the Bible (or... you may choose to ignore parts of the Bible that he may follow... like the parts of the Bible (I believe its Deuteronomy, that say you should kill believers of false Gods. That sort of thing.)

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly- Whether a Christian today agrees with Hitler's conclusions... it would appear that Hitler at least THOUGHT he was acting consistantly with the teachings of his Church. One doesn't have to look that hard, at least in the Old Testament, to find scriptural support for barbarous acts. So though you and I may not focus on those parts of the Bible, that's not to say they are not part of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the important point here. Regardless of whether other Christians would consider Hitler to be Christian, his MOTIVATION was his interpretation of the Christian teachings. It is identical to a moderate Muslim being opposed to Islamic terrorists who claim they are doing God's work.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

At any rate- it puts your snide comments about how I'm always wrong into perspective, doesn't it?


[/ QUOTE ]


No because as I tried to explain Catholic does not equal Christian. Nor does any other denomination.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you saying someone is not a Christian doesn't make it so. He was raised and still believed he was a Catholic. He appears to have believed he was acting with God's will. It even appears that, for a period, the Catholic Church endorsed his actions.

You have done nothing to prove he wasn't a Christian other then suggest he doesn't fit your (undefined) definition of Christianity. Just because someone doesn't act the way you believe a Christian should doesn't mean they aren't a Christian.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He appears to have believed he was acting with God's will.


[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to recall Hitler had some weird, mystical belief about the supernatural. I think it can also be shown that Darwin had far more influence on Hitler than Christ.

[ QUOTE ]

You have done nothing to prove he wasn't a Christian other then suggest he doesn't fit your (undefined) definition of Christianity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Statements like this are why you draw my snide remarks. My claim that Hitler didn't act like a Christian was supported, not by my definitions, but by Bible quotes. Where else would Christian behavior be defined?

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Statements like this are why you draw my snide remarks. My claim that Hitler didn't act like a Christian was supported, not by my definitions, but by Bible quotes. Where else would Christian behavior be defined?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that a Christian is only someone who follows every law of the bible exactly as laid out there?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that a Christian is only someone who follows every law of the bible exactly as laid out there?


[/ QUOTE ]

There are two issues. One is what is the attitude of someone's heart? Does he have genuine faith in Christ, has he been born again, is he regenerated? The Bible says we can't make that judgment.

The other is someone's behavior. That we can judge. If I commit a murder, I can be a Christian, but the murder is still a sin, it violates God's word.

If I commit many murders and never do any of the positive requirements of the Bible, if I don't exhibit any remorse or even indicate I know I'm doing wrong, and if it's clear that if allowed to I will continue to commit murder, then I suppose it's possible I'm really a Christian but it's truly hard to make the case. If I happen to be a politician doing those things and claim I belong to a church that doesn't convert my behavior into Christian behavior.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to recall Hitler had some weird, mystical belief about the supernatural. I think it can also be shown that Darwin had far more influence on Hitler than Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

You recalling that he had some other supernatural beliefs has no bearing on whether he was a Christian. And I don't see how you're going to prove that he was influenced more by Darwin other then your usual offering your opinion and assuming that it must therefore be true.

Your opinion on who influence him more is, of course, irrelevent. (1) He believed he was acting out God's Will (2) his anti-semitism was taught directly by the Church (3) he was a Christian in the sense that he was raised a Christian, believed he was following the teachings of his church and this is apparently backed up by the Catholic church at the time. Your grasping at straws mentioning some vague supernatural beliefs and Darwin.

[ QUOTE ]
Statements like this are why you draw my snide remarks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was more because you lack any substance to debate with other then your own opinions? Like in the thread where you attack Dawkins for what you claim are unqualified statements when, in reality, you haven't even read his works to see if he, in fact, has qualified his remarks. This is becoming rathar typical for you. But I digress.

[ QUOTE ]
My claim that Hitler didn't act like a Christian was supported, not by my definitions, but by Bible quotes. Where else would Christian behavior be defined?

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that others who disagree with you can post other quotes from the Bible to support their behaviour? (or perhaps you actually don't realize that?)

Certainly if you pick and choose the parts of the Bible you want to decide what makes a Christian then you can define what makes a person a Christian. Of course this kind of thinking has led to schisms throughout history. I'm sure there are plenty of good Christians who might think your definition of what makes a Good christian is lacking. Do you suppose if we brought representatives from all the branches of Christian Churches they would agree with you on this?

I'd bet if Hitler was here he could quote from the Bible a lot of scripture to support his beliefs.

At anyrate... I remind you of the Pope's comments regarding Hitler's actions in Europe towards Russia. I believe a few million Christians believe the Pope is the authority on this stuff... He praised Hitler for his, "high-minded gallantry in defense of the foundation of Christian culture. "

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd bet if Hitler was here he could quote from the Bible a lot of scripture to support his beliefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

So could Satan.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
like the parts of the Bible (I believe its Deuteronomy, that say you should kill believers of false Gods. That sort of thing.)

[/ QUOTE ]
You should look that up.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd bet if Hitler was here he could quote from the Bible a lot of scripture to support his beliefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

So could Satan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or the Pope... or a Lutheran Priest... or a Catholic Priest... or an Eastern Orthodox member.... or you... or my brother...

Isn't it great.

Anyhoo... your satan comment still doesn't help your case. It would still appear that he was Christian.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like the parts of the Bible (I believe its Deuteronomy, that say you should kill believers of false Gods. That sort of thing.)

[/ QUOTE ]
You should look that up.

[/ QUOTE ]

The more you post the more I'm convinced you need to read your Bible.

The offending quotes have been posted repeatedly on this forum. As well as quotes which are pro rape, slavery, misogynistic, genocidal, etc.

I know you like to discount the many, many ugly parts of the Bible but they're there.

[txag007]

Nevertheless, you should still look that up.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Nevertheless, you should still look that up.

[/ QUOTE ]

To what end? I have read these quotes in context with my own eyes, and the only effect was to disgust and shock me more than before. So, I've looked it up. Now what?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nevertheless, you should still look that up.

[/ QUOTE ]

To what end? I have read these quotes in context with my own eyes, and the only effect was to disgust and shock me more than before. So, I've looked it up. Now what?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think he just wants people reading the Bible... maybe one time it'll have a positive effect? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[txag007]

In what context? Saying you read something in context doesn't exactly make it so. Which passage in Deuteronomy did you read and in what context did you read it?

[CORed]

You can certainly debate as to whether Hitler was Christian or just used Christianity to further his agenda, but I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that Torquemada and others involved in the Spanish inquisition were not Christian. These folks tortured non-Christians and heretics to get them to confess and accept the true faith. All from a compassionate, humane desire to save their souls from hell, of course.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
In what context? Saying you read something in context doesn't exactly make it so. Which passage in Deuteronomy did you read and in what context did you read it?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about cover to cover? The context in which I read it was "sitting in front of my computer reading the bible."

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You can certainly debate as to whether Hitler was Christian or just used Christianity to further his agenda, but I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that Torquemada and others involved in the Spanish inquisition were not Christian. These folks tortured non-Christians and heretics to get them to confess and accept the true faith. All from a compassionate, humane desire to save their souls from hell, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, this is a far better point to make, and allows us to dismiss of the common rebuttal along the lines of "Yeah, but what about Stalin and Mao?"

Fine, Hitler isn't a Christian and Stalin and Mao aren't secular humanists. All well and good.

Now what about the Inquisition?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can certainly debate as to whether Hitler was Christian or just used Christianity to further his agenda, but I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that Torquemada and others involved in the Spanish inquisition were not Christian. These folks tortured non-Christians and heretics to get them to confess and accept the true faith. All from a compassionate, humane desire to save their souls from hell, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, this is a far better point to make, and allows us to dismiss of the common rebuttal along the lines of "Yeah, but what about Stalin and Mao?"

Fine, Hitler isn't a Christian and Stalin and Mao aren't secular humanists. All well and good.

Now what about the Inquisition?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see what Notready can't just post the same two quotes he did before and claim that the Christian Church actually wasn't Christian.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can certainly debate as to whether Hitler was Christian or just used Christianity to further his agenda, but I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that Torquemada and others involved in the Spanish inquisition were not Christian. These folks tortured non-Christians and heretics to get them to confess and accept the true faith. All from a compassionate, humane desire to save their souls from hell, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, this is a far better point to make, and allows us to dismiss of the common rebuttal along the lines of "Yeah, but what about Stalin and Mao?"

Fine, Hitler isn't a Christian and Stalin and Mao aren't secular humanists. All well and good.

Now what about the Inquisition?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see what Notready can't just post the same two quotes he did before and claim that the Christian Church actually wasn't Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the writings of the leaders of the Inquisition would do a fantastic job of arguing against NR, if he made that claim. Surely, they were convinced they were acting in direct compliance with scripture.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think the writings of the leaders of the Inquisition would do a fantastic job of arguing against NR, if he made that claim. Surely, they were convinced they were acting in direct compliance with scripture.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never studied Torq and the SI specifically. I've always believed Christians sometimes behave in an unChristian way. Torturing people to force them to profess faith is unBiblical - the opposite is the case.

Paul said "I've become all things to all men that I might by all means save some".

Not even Torq could square his practices with this admonition. And there are many more like it.

And I'm not picking on Catholics. Protestants have done evil in the name of God. Even Calvin. Which is predictable from what the Bible says about mankind. And what it says about the greatest characters of the Bible. None were without sin.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In what context? Saying you read something in context doesn't exactly make it so. Which passage in Deuteronomy did you read and in what context did you read it?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about cover to cover? The context in which I read it was "sitting in front of my computer reading the bible."

[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm....okay. I'll ask again:

Where is the passage in Deuteronomy that says to kill worshipers of false gods? And in what context does that passage exist? (Hint: Not in what context were you reading it.)

[tisthefire]

he's right you know, if you want an exact quote i can find that tomorrow but there is absolutely commands of killing those who worship a false god, deuterotomy makes god seem like quite a mean guy i must say

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In what context? Saying you read something in context doesn't exactly make it so. Which passage in Deuteronomy did you read and in what context did you read it?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about cover to cover? The context in which I read it was "sitting in front of my computer reading the bible."

[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm....okay. I'll ask again:

Where is the passage in Deuteronomy that says to kill worshipers of false gods? And in what context does that passage exist? (Hint: Not in what context were you reading it.)

[/ QUOTE ]

i think people tend to extrapolate from the 7th commandment that they are doing god's will by killing those who don't follow this.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In what context? Saying you read something in context doesn't exactly make it so. Which passage in Deuteronomy did you read and in what context did you read it?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about cover to cover? The context in which I read it was "sitting in front of my computer reading the bible."

[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm....okay. I'll ask again:

Where is the passage in Deuteronomy that says to kill worshipers of false gods? And in what context does that passage exist? (Hint: Not in what context were you reading it.)

[/ QUOTE ]

i think people tend to extrapolate from the 7th commandment that they are doing god's will by killing those who don't follow this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope.
Deuteronomy 17:2-5
"If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

[tisthefire]

yea this is one of my biggest problems with religion, people pick and choose what is undebateably true and simply skip or ignore sections like this, they are then consistent enough to turn around and condemn those people who read the religious texts literally and actually follow stuff like this, makes sense?

[txag007]

And the context?

To whom was the writer of Deuteronomy speaking?

What was his purpose in writing?

Why is Deuteronomy in the Bible and how does it relate to you and me?

Is every instruction in the Bible intended for you and me? Why and why not?

These are just some of the questions that must be answered before any book of the Bible can be placed in the proper context.

Unless of course you are reading it at your desk in front of a computer...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
And the context?

To whom was the writer of Deuteronomy speaking?

What was his purpose in writing?

Why is Deuteronomy in the Bible and how does it relate to you and me?

Is every instruction in the Bible intended for you and me? Why and why not?

These are just some of the questions that must be answered before any book of the Bible can be placed in the proper context.

Unless of course you are reading it at your desk in front of a computer...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. The point is, its extremely easy for the leaders of the Inquisition to find justifcation for what they want, AND TO DO SO ENTIRELY BIBLICALLY.

What answer could I possibly give to your questions that would make any difference? I cannot possibly imagine how the passage I quoted was a dietary law, since those are apparently the laws from Deut. that we no longer need to follow. The things like homosexuality, which are moral laws, are supposed to be the ones we keep, right? Well, idolatry and heresy seem like moral laws and not dietary laws to me, but what do I know.

Almost every part of the Bible was talking to a specific group of people, none of whom are me or you. And yet, for the friendly, happy-go-lucky parts, you have no problem putting yourself in their place, and assuming God/Jesus are really speaking to all of us. But in this example, he was only talking to those specific people?

And that ignores the fact that it doesn't matter WHO God was talking to here. The idea that at one point it was right for anyone to do this is the problem. Under what circumstances is stoning someone to death for worshipping the sun an acceptable practice?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
The things like homosexuality, which are moral laws, are supposed to be the ones we keep, right? Well, idolatry and heresy seem like moral laws and not dietary laws to me, but what do I know.


[/ QUOTE ]

Vhawk,
I've noticed that theists are very uncomfortable with the absolute morality they want to shove down our throats. They choose their own brand of relative morality instead.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that at one point it was right for anyone to do this is the problem. Under what circumstances is stoning someone to death for worshipping the sun an acceptable practice?


[/ QUOTE ]
Remember who the Israelites were as God's chosen people. They knew God existed because at one point he spoke directly to them. They were held to a very high standard, but it was for a purpose. God had a plan for Israel just as He has a plan for all of us. It's a good question, but to answer it you must put yourself in their shoes.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that at one point it was right for anyone to do this is the problem. Under what circumstances is stoning someone to death for worshipping the sun an acceptable practice?


[/ QUOTE ]
Remember who the Israelites were as God's chosen people. They knew God existed because at one point he spoke directly to them. They were held to a very high standard, but it was for a purpose. God had a plan for Israel just as He has a plan for all of us. It's a good question, but to answer it you must put yourself in their shoes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Done. So, now, tell me again, why is it ok for me to stone someone to death for worshipping the sun?

Is it STILL ok for me to do this? Very serious question. Actually, a better question is, is it ok for YOU to do this. You know God is real, just like the Israelites.

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that at one point it was right for anyone to do this is the problem. Under what circumstances is stoning someone to death for worshipping the sun an acceptable practice?


[/ QUOTE ]
Remember who the Israelites were as God's chosen people. They knew God existed because at one point he spoke directly to them. They were held to a very high standard, but it was for a purpose. God had a plan for Israel just as He has a plan for all of us. It's a good question, but to answer it you must put yourself in their shoes.

[/ QUOTE ]

if israelites are the chosen people, why are you not jewish?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that at one point it was right for anyone to do this is the problem. Under what circumstances is stoning someone to death for worshipping the sun an acceptable practice?


[/ QUOTE ]
Remember who the Israelites were as God's chosen people. They knew God existed because at one point he spoke directly to them. They were held to a very high standard, but it was for a purpose. God had a plan for Israel just as He has a plan for all of us. It's a good question, but to answer it you must put yourself in their shoes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Done. So, now, tell me again, why is it ok for me to stone someone to death for worshipping the sun?

Is it STILL ok for me to do this? Very serious question. Actually, a better question is, is it ok for YOU to do this. You know God is real, just like the Israelites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, why can't I say all these things about the Sermon on the Mount? I mean, he was talking to a more diverse group of people, I suppose, but none of them were modern Americans. Sure, some of his points seem great, but I need to put them into context. None of that really applies to me...I don't have to really follow any of the things he said, right?

I assume the answer is no, and that Jesus WAS speaking to me when he was up on the Mount. But how do I know this? And better yet, if his advice to me is good advice, and if it accurately reflects the nature of God, how could it possibly matter to WHOM he was speaking? Its either absolutely right or its not....right?

[tisthefire]

has txagg ever done anything other than continually challenge people's well thought out points with argumentative questions, apparently noone ever knows enough about the bible to make a point

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
has txagg ever done anything other than continually challenge people's well thought out points with argumentative questions, apparently noone ever knows enough about the bible to make a point

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats pretty much it, but I usually keep responding to him in the hopes that Peter666, NR, or someone who actually knows what he is talking about and is compelled to argue honestly will address some of my concerns.

[David Sklansky]

I think you got all of them pretty well cornered this time. (Remember that I say this as someone who has little interest as to whether religious people are right in what they beleive about God. I'm only interested in whether they are right when they say a hypothetical unbiased bookmaker should make their god a favorite to exist based only on the facts available to everybody.)

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it STILL ok for me to do this? Very serious question. Actually, a better question is, is it ok for YOU to do this. You know God is real, just like the Israelites.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now wait a second. Think about this. You've switched subjects on me. God's law as given to the Israelites through Moses was a law intended FOR Israel. The ones who were under the law were the same ones (or only a few generations removed) to whom God personally spoke; the same ones who saw the plagues when God dramatically rescued them from the bonds of slavery in Egypt; who saw Moses part the Red Sea. I could go on. The point is it was those people who were subject to the death penalty for worshipping another God.

Now you are asking me if it is okay for me to stone someone else for turning away from God simply because I know that God is real just like the Israelites did. The subject has changed. Just who are we talking about stoning? Somebody like Prodigy54321? (J/K, Prod) Prodigy could hardly be held to the same standards as someone who had witnessed the parting of the Red Sea.

The short answer to your question is no. As I said before, there is a reason Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are in the Bible, and while it does teach us a thing or two, it doesn't mean that every single word is directly applicable to us today.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
if israelites are the chosen people, why are you not jewish?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's actually a good question. I'm not Jewish primarily because I wasn't born into the Jewish race. The Bible is very clear, though, that Jesus died for Jews and Gentiles alike. Christians have been grafted onto the vine of Israel. That's why it is very important that the United States support Israel today.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
has txagg ever done anything other than continually challenge people's well thought out points with argumentative questions, apparently noone ever knows enough about the bible to make a point

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats pretty much it, but I usually keep responding to him in the hopes that Peter666, NR, or someone who actually knows what he is talking about and is compelled to argue honestly will address some of my concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]
The questions are valid and relevant to the discussion. Why not just answer them?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said before, there is a reason Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are in the Bible, and while it does teach us a thing or two, it doesn't mean that every single word is directly applicable to us today.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know which ones are and which ones aren't?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm only interested in whether they are right when they say a hypothetical unbiased bookmaker should make their god a favorite to exist based only on the facts available to everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can we talk about some of those facts available to everybody? The alternative to Christianity being correct is that it is made up, right? Made up either by one person at one time or made up as in it slowly evolved as stories grew and were passed down. Would you agree with this? Either way, it means that at some point somebody had to invent the story of the resurrection, right?

Then let me ask you a few questions (since these facts are available to everybody). If you were making up a religion in the first century a.d., why would you do the following things?

If the resurrection didn't happen and wasn't known to have happened, why would you base your religion on a crucified man? Regardless of how you feel about the resurrection, few people deny that the crucifixion happened. In the first century, a Roman crucifixion was a shameful, disgraceful way to die. Why base your religion on someone who was crucified?

Christianity demanded a huge change in behavior then what was considered socially acceptable to the Greeks and Romans. If you were inventing a religion, why make it so hard to follow? And how did such a religion not only keep from dying out, but grow exponentially?

Many of you on these forums claim to be offended by Christianity's arrogance and exlusivity. How much more so would it have been to the Romans! If you were starting a religion and facing an uphill battle, why make it so exclusive? And how did such and exlusive club grow like it did if the resurrection wasn't true?

"If you wanted to start a new religion with new and wild claims involved, do you claim, at any point, to have connections that you don't have? If I claimed tomorrow or even 40 years from now that my Aunt Nettie was resurrected, do I dare say that she was put on trial before Clarence Thomas, was wanted by my state governor for questioning, was buried in the intended tomb of Tom Cruise? We have often individually considered the claims of Christianity such as the burial in Joe of A.'s tomb, but let's now consider collectively what we're dealing with. The NT is filled with claims of connections to and reports of incidents involving 'famous people.'" Why claim to have connections that you don't have if you were making up a religion and wanted it to grow? (More on the source of that quote later.)

So it is: The Jews would dislike you, the Romans would dislike you, your family would disown you, everyone would avoid or make sport of you. Furthermore, men like Paul and Matthew, and even Peter and John, gave up lucrative trades for the sake of a mission that was all too obviously going to be nothing but trouble for them. It is quite unlikely that anyone would have gone the distance for the Christian faith at any time -- unless it had something tangible behind it. Why?

Christianity is based upon the resurrection of Jesus. Why base your entire religion on the testimony of women (who were first to arrive at the tomb)? The testimony of women wasn't in valid in court under Roman law. Why do this if you were making up a religion that you wanted to grow?

If your religion was false, why would you encourage people to check the facts for themselves? Many of the claims of Christianity were historical and therefore verifiable. Why do this if you are preaching lies?

Just curious. The quotes I mentioned, a deeper discussion of these questions, and many additional questions can be found here. (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html)

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I said before, there is a reason Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are in the Bible, and while it does teach us a thing or two, it doesn't mean that every single word is directly applicable to us today.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know which ones are and which ones aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]
You study them. Traditionally, the Mosaic Law can be divided into three catagories: moral, civil, ceremonial.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In the first century, a Roman crucifixion was a shameful, disgraceful way to die. Why base your religion on someone who was crucified?

[/ QUOTE ]

It comes from the anthropological family of scapegoating, common in most cultures and it's the evolved end of the 'sacrifice a pig' line. It was also a common theme in earlier and concurrent belief systems.

luckyme

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I said before, there is a reason Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are in the Bible, and while it does teach us a thing or two, it doesn't mean that every single word is directly applicable to us today.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know which ones are and which ones aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]
You study them. Traditionally, the Mosaic Law can be divided into three catagories: moral, civil, ceremonial.

[/ QUOTE ]

You study them,

and work out which parts are most applicable to, or in agreement with, your current non-theistically-produced systems of knowledge and morality

[txag007]

So pessimistic...

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
You study them. Traditionally, the Mosaic Law can be divided into three catagories: moral, civil, ceremonial.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the bible is allegorical, not to be taken literally. What about the parts where Jesus is in them? Should we take those parts literally? Or just interpret them the way we want to. ( How do you put it. . . in context ).

[Alex-db]

Is one, in theory, able to study the Bible in isolation and work out which of God's words were only applicable to earlier societies, which parts are symbolic, and which parts are literal and historical?

It may be an interesting thought experiment to see how a completely sheltered human given a Bible and a position as all-powerful Prime Minister would design society, assuming he wasn't allowed any other references or advice in the process.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Is one, in theory, able to study the Bible in isolation and work out which of God's words were only applicable to earlier societies, which parts are symbolic, and which parts are literal and historical?

It may be an interesting thought experiment to see how a completely sheltered human given a Bible and a position as all-powerful Prime Minister would design society, assuming he wasn't allowed any other references or advice in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. The Bible is God's message to the world. As such, it is perfectly clear what he meant. After all, God couldn't deliver a muddy imperfect message.

You'll find almost all people who read the whole Bible understand it perfectly and agree on all points. After all, a perfect being would communicate his message so perfectly that even man couldn't misunderstand it.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
So the bible is allegorical, not to be taken literally.

[/ QUOTE ]
How did you come to that conclusion based on what I said?

[txag007]

So cynical...

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Is one, in theory, able to study the Bible in isolation and work out which of God's words were only applicable to earlier societies, which parts are symbolic, and which parts are literal and historical?

It may be an interesting thought experiment to see how a completely sheltered human given a Bible and a position as all-powerful Prime Minister would design society, assuming he wasn't allowed any other references or advice in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you do this? In what other subject matter would this be required? Why is the Bible any different?

[Alex-db]

Like a double-blind test in pharmaceuticals.

If you look for things that fit your expectations you will find them, but they won't be useful. Similar to people looking at Nostradamus' "predictions".

[Alex-db]

The theory is that you are deciding what is and isn't relevant from your experience of other non-theistic (atheist - shiver!) sources.

This could be refuted if the analysis can be done without reference to modern society.

[kurto]

Cynical? Realistic is more appropriate.

A God who is perfect by our standards would not deliver the mess that is the Bible. His word would be crystal clear, not open for interpretation and easy for all to decipher.

Btw- you let the thread die earlier. I'm still curious how you accept the stories of a culture that was 2000 years behind in science and understanding of the world.

Its the equivalent of believing a volcano is a God because a primitive man said that was the case.

[dknightx]

the bible is the word of God, meaning if one understands the bible, he/she can understand the mind/will of God. The reason there is so much confusion about the meaning of the bible is because man is seperated from God because of sin (side note: i always find it interesting how a lot of people don't actually understand what "sin" even means). When the Old Testament says to stone someone for being a homosexual, should we take this literally? YES. Does that mean *we* should stone homosexuals? NO. Why? The point of that passage is that yes, literally, that is what God asked of the Isrealites, why? So they would understand that God's stance against sin. So today, in the new covenant time, what can we learn from a literal reading of the Old Testament? We can learn what God considers sin, but from the New Testament, we also learn we are to be forgiving, loving, kind, and above all else, we are not to judge others. In the NEW convenant, the Old Covenant law merely gives us the knowledge of sin:

"because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." - Romans 3:20

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
the bible is the word of God, meaning if one understands the bible, he/she can understand the mind/will of God. The reason there is so much confusion about the meaning of the bible is because man is seperated from God because of sin (side note: i always find it interesting how a lot of people don't actually understand what "sin" even means). When the Old Testament says to stone someone for being a homosexual, should we take this literally? YES. Does that mean *we* should stone homosexuals? NO. Why? The point of that passage is that yes, literally, that is what God asked of the Isrealites, why? So they would understand that God's stance against sin. So today, in the new covenant time, what can we learn from a literal reading of the Old Testament? We can learn what God considers sin, but from the New Testament, we also learn we are to be forgiving, loving, kind, and above all else, we are not to judge others. In the NEW convenant, the Old Covenant law merely gives us the knowledge of sin:

"because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." - Romans 3:20

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't have to explain. God is an perfect being. A perfect being would have no problem communicating perfectly to everyone. His word is crystal clear to all.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
the bible is the word of God, meaning if one understands the bible, he/she can understand the mind/will of God. The reason there is so much confusion about the meaning of the bible is because man is seperated from God because of sin (side note: i always find it interesting how a lot of people don't actually understand what "sin" even means). When the Old Testament says to stone someone for being a homosexual, should we take this literally? YES. Does that mean *we* should stone homosexuals? NO. Why? The point of that passage is that yes, literally, that is what God asked of the Isrealites, why? So they would understand that God's stance against sin. So today, in the new covenant time, what can we learn from a literal reading of the Old Testament? We can learn what God considers sin, but from the New Testament, we also learn we are to be forgiving, loving, kind, and above all else, we are not to judge others. In the NEW convenant, the Old Covenant law merely gives us the knowledge of sin:

"because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." - Romans 3:20

[/ QUOTE ]

So if my servant is given a wife and has children, they are my property when the servant leaves; FACT. But the punishment for breaking that rule would now be less barbaric due to the New testament.

So if the Bible could be given to a civilised alien race along with proof that it is the word of God, would/should they revert to owning servants, and considering women as property? (I accept they could now be 'forgiven', NT-style, if they didn't, but that's not the point)

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
His word would be crystal clear, not open for interpretation and easy for all to decipher.


[/ QUOTE ]
Says Kurto.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the bible is the word of God, meaning if one understands the bible, he/she can understand the mind/will of God. The reason there is so much confusion about the meaning of the bible is because man is seperated from God because of sin (side note: i always find it interesting how a lot of people don't actually understand what "sin" even means). When the Old Testament says to stone someone for being a homosexual, should we take this literally? YES. Does that mean *we* should stone homosexuals? NO. Why? The point of that passage is that yes, literally, that is what God asked of the Isrealites, why? So they would understand that God's stance against sin. So today, in the new covenant time, what can we learn from a literal reading of the Old Testament? We can learn what God considers sin, but from the New Testament, we also learn we are to be forgiving, loving, kind, and above all else, we are not to judge others. In the NEW convenant, the Old Covenant law merely gives us the knowledge of sin:

"because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." - Romans 3:20

[/ QUOTE ]

So if my servant is given a wife and has children, they are my property when the servant leaves; FACT. But the punishment for breaking that rule would now be less barbaric due to the New testament.

So if the Bible could be given to a civilised alien race along with proof that it is the word of God, would/should they revert to owning servants, and considering women as property? (I accept they could now be 'forgiven', NT-style, if they didn't, but that's not the point)

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not sure where in the bible it says thou shall own slaves, and thou shall consider women as property.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His word would be crystal clear, not open for interpretation and easy for all to decipher.


[/ QUOTE ]
Says Kurto.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome to post something more substantial, though its hardly expected of you.

May I start by saying that I think a lot of human writers could write a much clearer message. If you don't think a perfect God couldn't get his message out clearer, I think you have a very poor conception of perfection.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the bible is the word of God, meaning if one understands the bible, he/she can understand the mind/will of God. The reason there is so much confusion about the meaning of the bible is because man is seperated from God because of sin (side note: i always find it interesting how a lot of people don't actually understand what "sin" even means). When the Old Testament says to stone someone for being a homosexual, should we take this literally? YES. Does that mean *we* should stone homosexuals? NO. Why? The point of that passage is that yes, literally, that is what God asked of the Isrealites, why? So they would understand that God's stance against sin. So today, in the new covenant time, what can we learn from a literal reading of the Old Testament? We can learn what God considers sin, but from the New Testament, we also learn we are to be forgiving, loving, kind, and above all else, we are not to judge others. In the NEW convenant, the Old Covenant law merely gives us the knowledge of sin:

"because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." - Romans 3:20

[/ QUOTE ]

So if my servant is given a wife and has children, they are my property when the servant leaves; FACT. But the punishment for breaking that rule would now be less barbaric due to the New testament.

So if the Bible could be given to a civilised alien race along with proof that it is the word of God, would/should they revert to owning servants, and considering women as property? (I accept they could now be 'forgiven', NT-style, if they didn't, but that's not the point)

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not sure where in the bible it says thou shall own slaves, and thou shall consider women as property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exodus 21. Have you read the Bible?? /images/graemlins/smile.gif I'm sure thats not the only place.

[txag007]

First of all, there was plenty of substance to my last post. The "Says Kurto" comment was meant to indicate that there was no reasoning and no explanation behind your post. Your assumption is that the Bible is imperfect and that its message is somehow 'muddy', but what you fail to explain is why God would want to make his message more clear. When studied properly, the Bible is understandable. However, you must do exactly that: study it. Just as you would any other subject. There is a reason seminaries exist, and there is a reason people devote their lives and their careers to the study and explanation of God's Word. It's just like there is a reason people devote their lives and their careers to the study and practice of medicine. To assume, though, that God would want someone to have perfect knowledge of Him without putting in the effort and time with Him to obtain that knowledge mistakes something about God's character. It's why He gave us free will. How else would He know that our love is for real?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Exodus 21. Have you read the Bible?? I'm sure thats not the only place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually find this kind of frustrating. I think Dknight is one of the more articulate theists on the board. I can't help but believe that she's aware there's etensive rules in the Old Testament about all the rules of how you can handle your slaves (For instance, if you rape your slave, you must do X for penance. You can beat your slaves but you can't kill them. If you take over a country, you can force a woman to be your wife. That kind of stuff.)

Matter of fact, slavery in the US was vigorously defended on Biblical grounds...

from religioustolerance.org:
[ QUOTE ]
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).



[/ QUOTE ]

There have been numerous threads about this and much scripture posted on this forum about this very subject.

[txag007]

Exodus 21 does not order anyone to own slaves, and it does not order anyone to consider women as property.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Matter of fact, slavery in the US was vigorously defended on Biblical grounds...

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean it was right.

[dknightx]

ok, first off, im a guy, but i guess i can understand the confusion. Secondly, i asked where in the bible does God say you must own slaves, it doesnt say you MUST OWN SLAVES, it merely tells you that if you are to own slaves, how you should treat them. As has been stated before, you must take these verses in historical and cultural context. My post was simply in response to alex's question on what aliens would do if they knew the bible was the word of God.

did you know there are rules on how we can't eat certain kinds of meat in the old testament? but how come in the new convenant, we can eat any type of meat? you consider this a "biblical contradiction", i consider this a representation of God's desire for jewish and gentile alike to be saved (and at the same time, allowing us to eat some delicious 20oz porterhouse steaks)

[Alex-db]

The commandment that a slave does not want to leave his (your!) wife and so he becomes your slave for life necessarily presoposes condoning slavery and ownership of the woman.

[Alex-db]

But you said the rules were a fixed definition of sin. The punishments related to the society.

I just think there is some small chance that you only say that about the rules that happen to match our current non-theistic rule system, and so there is nothing divine about the rules you have chosen to follow.

I.e. if we still ate only the listed meats, you would be confident it was a divine law, but as it is it was just circumstantial.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, there was plenty of substance to my last post.

[/ QUOTE ] I believe I'm not the only one who has pointed out that you rarely answer questions other then by asking open ended questions.

[ QUOTE ]
The "Says Kurto" comment was meant to indicate that there was no reasoning and no explanation behind your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I thought it could be gleaned from my post. To spell it out... There is little agreement on how to interpret the Bible (people can't even agree whether its stories are metaphorical or literal). People can use the Bible to justify any sort of belief. There are countless divisions based on differences in how the Bible is meant to be interpreted. Some fundamentalists study the Bible and believe it to be literal, that the Earth is 6000 years old and that women belong in the home. Others believe its all allegorical. One person will tell you that you can't do A B or C because it says so in the Old Testament. Another Christian will say that those rules don't apply to all men. (see this very thread.) Some will tell you that the NT over rides those rules. Another will point out that Jesus says God's word in terms of the OT are eternal.

Though I fully expect you to think its NOT muddy, I can only think this goes back to your proclaimed Faith over Reason.. because there's centuries of disagreement over differences in Biblical interpretations.

[ QUOTE ]
but what you fail to explain is why God would want to make his message more clear

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is almost a laughable question. To think that he wouldn't want to make it clear, particularly when your eternal salvation rests upon it, is laughable. Then again, it does fit the God of the Old Testament who seems pretty evil.

[ QUOTE ]
When studied properly, the Bible is understandable

[/ QUOTE ] AAAh. When studied properly. Thanks for clearing that up. Apparently you know how to study it properly. But, since there are centuries of division and schisms about this sort of thing... I'm going to have to say most people must be studying wrong. Unfortunately, God made it clear for you how to study it right and must have messed up with everyone else. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ QUOTE ]
However, you must do exactly that: study it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again... people have done that for centuries and have come away with different interpretations. Many have studied and and concluded that its just the superstitious stories of primitive man. People study it all the time and don't come to the same conclusions.

[ QUOTE ]
To assume, though, that God would want someone to have perfect knowledge of Him without putting in the effort and time with Him to obtain that knowledge mistakes something about God's character. It's why He gave us free will. How else would He know that our love is for real?



[/ QUOTE ]

You describe a very childish, cruel and insecure God. And you still miss all the points about how unclear it all is.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Matter of fact, slavery in the US was vigorously defended on Biblical grounds...

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean it was right.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina



[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, Txag. The Bible seems to support it fully.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
But you said the rules were a fixed definition of sin. The punishments related to the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

no i said the law gave knowledge of sin. Not that the law tells us what sin is. Like i said earlier, you are probably one of the people that don't know what "sin" means.