The 2nd Great Christian Argument

[BrentonKasselder]

Understanding gods love

I have a strong faith in the saving power of the Christ Jesus.....I beleive he is the imbodiment of God and all Morality, sinless and perfect. He is the stainless manifestation of each and every "law," man may attempt to be completely righteous and yet as history and bible will show they will inevitably fail. The idea that we may earn our way into heaven is so ridiculous due to the fact that we absolutely donot deserve Heaven. In our sickness we "christians" or (followers of Christ) have and will continue to show the rest of the world a broken, tattered and self righteous group. The world as a whole is filled with sinners and that comes as no surprise to GOD and is the precise reason Jesus was sent to die on the cross. The fact that one is able to revoke the authenticity of Christ based souly on the disfigurement of his followers is all to sad...I wish that the followers of Christ would show the world a much more pure Christ immulated through them but as we can see through history and what the bible tells us it simply will not happen. It is not about you, God and I, it is simply about GOD and yourself....When Christ is accepted for what he truely is and we accept ourselves for what we are.....one is than and only than able to submit himself to God with the trust and love so clearly seen in Christ during his last moments in the Garden just before his martyrdom on the cross.
What i am saying is that I can never Prove that Jesus is the way to God only show you who it is Jesus is and allow you to test it out for yourself. It is not about shame and conviction it is his grace and mercy so freely given to those who accept it, that must be placed upon a pedastal* for the world to see.

 

[Satya]

I have a strong faith in the saving power of the Christ Jesus.....I beleive he is the imbodiment of God and all Morality, sinless and perfect. He is the stainless manifestation of each and every "law," man may attempt to be completely righteous and yet as history and bible will show they will inevitably fail. The idea that we may earn our way into heaven is so ridiculous due to the fact that we absolutely donot deserve Heaven. In our sickness we "christians" or (followers of Christ) have and will continue to show the rest of the world a broken, tattered and self righteous group. The world as a whole is filled with sinners and that comes as no surprise to GOD and is the precise reason Jesus was sent to die on the cross. The fact that one is able to revoke the authenticity of Christ based souly on the disfigurement of his followers is all to sad...I wish that the followers of Christ would show the world a much more pure Christ immulated through them but as we can see through history and what the bible tells us it simply will not happen. It is not about you, God and I, it is simply about GOD and yourself....When Christ is accepted for what he truely is and we accept ourselves for what we are.....one is than and only than able to submit himself to God with the trust and love so clearly seen in Christ during his last moments in the Garden just before his martyrdom on the cross.
What i am saying is that I can never Prove that Jesus is the way to God only show you who it is Jesus is and allow you to test it out for yourself. It is not about shame and conviction it is his grace and mercy so freely given to those who accept it, that must be placed upon a pedastal* for the world to see.

This thread is for challenging the tenets on which Christians argue the authenticity of their religion, not for preaching. Do you wish to challenge the authenticity of the Christian religion, or defend some of the attacks that have made on the tenets stated in the OP? If not, then I think you have misunderstood the purpose of this thread.

 

[Duty]

Cause I like the idea.

A necrophiliac likes the idea of...well, you know exactly what he likes. Does that make it ok?

I like the idea of Star Trek, does that make it reality?



Point is: reality isn't described based on how we feel about it. "God exists" is a proposition about reality. It's a fallacy to say "God exists because I like the idea." In fact, it's called an Appeal to Emotion, and is almost a Wishful Thinking fallacy.

 

[the]

A necrophiliac likes the idea of...well, you know exactly what he likes. Does that make it ok?

I like the idea of Star Trek, does that make it reality?



Point is: reality isn't described based on how we feel about it. "God exists" is a proposition about reality. It's a fallacy to say "God exists because I like the idea." In fact, it's called an Appeal to Emotion, and is almost a Wishful Thinking fallacy.

I'm ok with my cognitive dissonance. I wouldnt say it is anywhere in the ballpark of being a necrophiliac though.

 

[Duty]

I'm ok with my cognitive dissonance. I wouldnt say it is anywhere in the ballpark of being a necrophiliac though.

I don't know...religion has gotten a lot of people killed...

 

[the]

I don't know...religion has gotten a lot of people killed...

Just like ... necrophilia ??? Where are you going with this?

 

[Satya]

Just like ... necrophilia ??? Where are you going with this?

Necrophiliacs like having sex with dead bodies. I don't think they actually kill anyone.

 

[just me]

I went across the internet and asked probably dozens upon dozens of Christians the same simple question...

Why would you let a 2,000 year old book dictate your morality?

Many simply answered they chose to because they could. Others said they accept it purely on faith. Some argued that they accept it based on subjective experiences, such as how they were raised, miracles they had seen in life, or how their life had improved by accepting the faith. Some chose to accept it because they feared what would happen if they rejected it and were wrong. Others chose to accept it because they felt they couldn't deal with the "despair" of a world without God. Some couldn't even conceive of world consisting of morals without the Bible.

After a long, long while I came across some Christians who provided what I consider to be the four arguments of Christianity which serve to some as proof of its authenticity.

Argument #1

The Empty Tomb

If there was not an empty tomb, then the Roman soldiers would have simply provided a body and crushed Christianity long before it could spread.

Argument #2

Extra Biblical Historians

Some ancient non Christian historians have made accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Many of these historians were largely skeptics of Christianity and made arguments against it which have been used as tacit proof of Christ's existence. Some of these historians were Thallus, Tacticus, Serapion, Pliny the Younger, Suetonis, and Josephus.

Argument #3

The Disciples

The argument is often made, that the disciples would not go out into the world where they would face persecution and death, and preach a lie.

Argument #4

The Prophecies

It is argued that Jesus fulfilled certain prophecies established in the Old Testament for the Messiah.

Keep in mind that these four arguments are the total sum of Christian logic as proof of the authenticity of the religion. For around 2,000 years, the entire Christian faith has rested on these premises, and for nearly 2,000 years, the most scholarly Christians have sharpened these arguments for the sake of defending their faith.

I'll let anyone who wants to challenge these tenets do so before I come in with my own insights as to the shortcomings of these arguments. I only ask that anyone who comments in this thread remains civil and tolerant, regardless of whether you are Christian or not Christan.

Satya, I have to admit I like your style and commitment to facts. That said, you should know beyond a shadow of a doubt I am not questioning you. Please admit I answered your question without argument's sake. The question was personal, as you stated "you" instead of "one", and I answered your question without trying to prove anything. The evidence is in the written word why I choose to let those words dictate my morals. I shouldn't have to explain my choice with answering your four supposed arguments, when they have nothing to do with my choice. The morals in the Bible are healthy morals, even being kind to one's body and not merely their mente. Hence, my simple answer to your original question is because I choose to.
Once again, I enjoy your style. I would like to share something a teacher once taught many moons ago, if I may and it should take nothing away from the spirit of your thread:
Feelings are neither right nor wrong: they are only feelings. Grand statement, don't you agree?

 

[the]

Necrophiliacs like having sex with dead bodies. I don't think they actually kill anyone.

That is why I wanted more clairification on where he was going with this. I dont understand his train of thought.

 

[Satya]

The morals in the Bible are healthy morals, even being kind to one's body and not merely their mente.

I'm a gay person living in the middle of Christian America. I see the "morals" of the Bible all the time. Please forgive me if I disagree. I'm not fond of the book and how it has been used to oppress countless groups of people throughout history. I'm sure your experience with the book has been very different than mine and I don't hold that against you.

Hence, my simple answer to your original question is because I choose to.

That is a perfectly fine answer. You don't require evidence beyond the merit you perceive within the book.

Once again, I enjoy your style. I would like to share something a teacher once taught many moons ago, if I may and it should take nothing away from the spirit of your thread:
Feelings are neither right nor wrong: they are only feelings. Grand statement, don't you agree?[

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[BrentonKasselder]

This thread is for challenging the tenets on which Christians argue the authenticity of their religion, not for preaching. Do you wish to challenge the authenticity of the Christian religion, or defend some of the attacks that have made on the tenets stated in the OP? If not, then I think you have misunderstood the purpose of this thread.

I see the "purpose" of this thread and am simply trying to bring a different light upon your minds, attempting to lead you in a different direction so as to break this chain.
It does not seem to me there is any true understanding of who Christ is, that is why I "preach" to you.

No hard feeling, I pray for the best.
Brenton Kasselder

 

[Satya]

I see the "purpose" of this thread and am simply trying to bring a different light upon your minds, attempting to lead you in a different direction so as to break this chain.
It does not seem to me there is any true understanding of who Christ is, that is why I "preach" to you.
I see absolutely no point in arguing for arguments sake....You can attempt to dispove Christianity from the outside for the next thousand years if you so wish, but without understanding who it is Christ is you will never get anywhere. In fact I believe that as soon as you begin to know Christ on a personal level your point of view will change dramatically. This is a challenge, not a participation in this seemingly endless "circle jerk"

No hard feeling, I pray for the best.
Brenton Kasselder

I'll direct your attention to numbers 2-4 of the things that piss me off in a discussion.

http://forum.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=2110

 

[just me]

I'm a gay person living in the middle of Christian America. I see the "morals" of the Bible all the time. Please forgive me if I disagree. I'm not fond of the book and how it has been used to oppress countless groups of people throughout history. I'm sure your experience with the book has been very different than mine and I don't hold that against you.

Satya, I am at a loss for words you have said that you were gay. Wow.
If someone were to ask themselves a question, "What are morals?", then argue for the sake of trying to affirm the way they live; I see conflict
leading to denial. Life is about choices, and some choices we make may feel alright to our own self while they cause great discord with the masses.
If a person chooses to live a specific lifestyle, that is their choice. If they have a problem trying to justify their choice in the Bible and cannot do so, it would be my guess they are going to turn against it. Why? Maybe because they have chosen to...once again a choice. Should a person choose to try and live by the morals taught in the Bible, then they have the right to feel the way they wish to feel about it....mostly good feelings.
Should a person choose a way of life contradictory of the Bible's teachings concerning morals, then they have the right to feel the way they wish to feel about it...mostly bad feelings. Feelings are neither right nor wrong; they are but choices we make and the outcome of how we feel toward those choices. Who am I to tell someone they shouldn't feel that way or this way?
I will not tolerate your throwing the word "gay" into this and falling into a discussion regarding that, as it is merely a word that has been proven one likely to be discussed as immoral by most...not all, of course. You may use it but I choose to not discuss it. You are weaving a web; let it be for someone else to get caught up in.
It has been people that have oppressed others in history, not the Bible. I have never seen anyone in the history books beating someone to death with a Bible, and would guess neither have you. People choose to go to war. People choose to spread terrorism. People choose to stand up and fight against terrorism. People choose to translate their Quran or Bible into whatever is convenient for them a lot of times. People have used other things to start wars with and to kill others over. I view that as looking at a firearm; guns don't kill people, people kill people. Please don't talk about guns as it was just an analogy and not a new subject.

That is a perfectly fine answer. You don't require evidence beyond the merit you perceive within the book.

Thank you for respecting my right to choose.

 

[Satya]

Satya, I am at a loss for words you have said that you were gay. Wow.
If someone were to ask themselves a question, "What are morals?", then argue for the sake of trying to affirm the way they live; I see conflict
leading to denial. Life is about choices, and some choices we make may feel alright to our own self while they cause great discord with the masses.
If a person chooses to live a specific lifestyle, that is their choice. If they have a problem trying to justify their choice in the Bible and cannot do so, it would be my guess they are going to turn against it. Why? Maybe because they have chosen to...once again a choice. Should a person choose to try and live by the morals taught in the Bible, then they have the right to feel the way they wish to feel about it....mostly good feelings.
Should a person choose a way of life contradictory of the Bible's teachings concerning morals, then they have the right to feel the way they wish to feel about it...mostly bad feelings. Feelings are neither right nor wrong; they are but choices we make and the outcome of how we feel toward those choices. Who am I to tell someone they shouldn't feel that way or this way?
I will not tolerate your throwing the word "gay" into this and falling into a discussion regarding that, as it is merely a word that has been proven one likely to be discussed as immoral by most...not all, of course. You may use it but I choose to not discuss it. You are weaving a web; let it be for someone else to get caught up in.
It has been people that have oppressed others in history, not the Bible. I have never seen anyone in the history books beating someone to death with a Bible, and would guess neither have you. People choose to go to war. People choose to spread terrorism. People choose to stand up and fight against terrorism. People choose to translate their Quran or Bible into whatever is convenient for them a lot of times. People have used other things to start wars with and to kill others over. I view that as looking at a firearm; guns don't kill people, people kill people. Please don't talk about guns as it was just an analogy and not a new subject.

I must say that is the finest response I have ever seen to that particular charge.

I suppose you are right. I don't really hate the Bible. The actual people who translate and interpret it in order oppress, persecute, and look down on others are a different story. In fact, I even have a great appreciation for Christianity and enjoy many of its moral propositions. And you have a valid point. People often don't choose to feel the way they do, and those feelings in themselves are neither right nor wrong.

 

[TheLastMohican]

In fact I believe that as soon as you begin to know Christ on a personal level your point of view will change dramatically. This is a challenge, not a participation in this seemingly endless "circle jerk"

As an administrator: You call this thread a "circle jerk" and state that you are not participating in it. If that is the approach that you prefer, then you have little to contribute in this thread. Unless you intend to address the topic, refrain from posting here.
Read the Forum Rules and Guidelines if you haven't already done so.

 

[BrentonKasselder]

As an administrator: You call this thread a "circle jerk" and state that you are not participating in it. If that is the approach that you prefer, then you have little to contribute in this thread. Unless you intend to address the topic, refrain from posting here.
Read the Forum Rules and Guidelines if you haven't already done so.

Your right and I apologize for the comment ...In hindsight I can see that was most definetly not something I should have said. The comment was targeting and rude ...contradicting my even posting at all......

Hope ya can forgive me

 

[just me]

I must say that is the finest response I have ever seen to that particular charge.

I suppose you are right. I don't really hate the Bible. The actual people who translate and interpret it in order oppress, persecute, and look down on others are a different story. In fact, I even have a great appreciation for Christianity and enjoy many of its moral propositions. And you have a valid point. People often don't choose to feel the way they do, and those feelings in themselves are neither right nor wrong.

Thank you for your wording in the last of your sentences. It is far better than I was able to accomplish. As for the response, there were many involved over the years in the way it was shown. I, therefore, cannot take full credit for what others have taken the time to share with me. All I can do is try. As a much younger man I would possibly have preached to you. I had a teacher once that taught similarly to the way you present new topics. After putting my foot in my mouth a few times, it became clear to me he was the teacher and I the student. His way of teaching the scriptures helped to remove burdens I carried. I miss that remarkable friend and hope he and his wife are doing well. Thank you for your kind and unabrasive reply.

 

[just me]

Your right and I apologize for the comment ...In hindsight I can see that was most definetly not something I should have said. The comment was targeting and rude ...contradicting my even posting at all......

Hope ya can forgive me

Takes more of a man to admit a wrong and apologize for it, than to hide it or just walk away. Would enjoy a PM or two but cannot get it to work. Maybe later.

 

[VH]

Something to take into consideration:

What you believe will not change the nature of God.

If God exists, nothing we can feel, think, or believe will change the nature of God. If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and able to create a universe of galaxies that go on farther than the most advanced telescope man can create can see, then nothing we do will change who or what God is.

If God does not exist, nothing we can feel, think, or believe will change that. If there is no God, then nothing we can do as human beings will create an omniscient, omnipotent entity able to create a universe of galaxies that go farther than the most advanced telescope man can create can see. If we believe in God, we cannot make God exist. If we do not believe in God we cannot make God exist less.

Our perceptions, interpretations, choices, beliefs, and free will do not change the nature of what is or is not God. No matter how much we believe, disbelieve, agree, disagree, bicker, debate, or postulate our belief or disbelief in God is irrelevant to all but the individual. How each of us choose to perceive the existence or lack of existence of God is only our personal belief, and still has no effect on the nature of what God truly is or is not.

Whether or not Christianity is correct, in any of its myriad of forms that in some cases radically disagree with one another, is a moot point for debate. God either exists and agrees with one, some, or all of them, or does not. Nothing that we can reason here will change that.

 

[Duty]

Something to take into consideration:

What you believe will not change the nature of God.

If God exists, nothing we can feel, think, or believe will change the nature of God. If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and able to create a universe of galaxies that go on farther than the most advanced telescope man can create can see, then nothing we do will change who or what God is.

If God does not exist, nothing we can feel, think, or believe will change that. If there is no God, then nothing we can do as human beings will create an omniscient, omnipotent entity able to create a universe of galaxies that go farther than the most advanced telescope man can create can see. If we believe in God, we cannot make God exist. If we do not believe in God we cannot make God exist less.

Great stuff...

Our perceptions, interpretations, choices, beliefs, and free will do not change the nature of what is or is not God. No matter how much we believe, disbelieve, agree, disagree, bicker, debate, or postulate our belief or disbelief in God is irrelevant to all but the individual. How each of us choose to perceive the existence or lack of existence of God is only our personal belief, and still has no effect on the nature of what God truly is or is not.

Whether or not Christianity is correct, in any of its myriad of forms that in some cases radically disagree with one another, is a moot point for debate. God either exists and agrees with one, some, or all of them, or does not. Nothing that we can reason here will change that.

Isn't this a contradiction though? How can you perceive something that doesn't exist? How can you not perceive something that does exist if it is within your perception range?

No perception or logical necessity of God seems to conclude in a nontheism. Depending on the definition of God it could land into atheism or agnosticism (and I guess theism, but any reasonable definition of God is going to include a supernatural force...and since the supernatural is not perceivable nor does it logically follow from known premises, this line of thinking can not honestly land in theism).