Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh we'll be alright fellow atheists. Look! The flames aren't even hot enough to burn his hair and moustache off!!
Ye gods Some people will believe any tripe.
And they demand 'respect' for believing balderdash like that! No wonder they get laughed at.
Of course the flames didn't singe his hair and moustache! How could non-Christians God takes to hell to see what awaits them for not accepting Jesus recognize him since his hair and moustache were his personality.
I will give you the best honest answer I can, Pleroo because you deserve it--as one of the good guys (or gals) on this board:
I'd love to have meaningful communication with God because I could ask Him, "God, if you really want us to believe in your son, Jesus as our savior then why didn't you leave proof so irrefutable and incontrovertible that we wouldn't even need to debate it?"
And what good would that do really? God doesn't care about people who only believe. God is interested in those who sincerely want to know Him and surrender to Him. The Bible even says that the demons believe. Simply accepting that there is a God does not make you born again. God gave us the gift of life and asks us to give part of that life back to Him. That means your heart must desire to know God so much that you give up your self identity and desire for sin and then be born again with a new identity. So it doesn't surprise me that God doesn't put on a pony show for atheists. For those who do seek Him, the proof is out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
I have asked this question to myself hundreds of times since leaving Christianity and even asked it out loud a few times just to see if I'd get any response or sign from God, but so far....NOTHING.
This question, to me, is the biggest mystery about Christianity.
Why aren't Christians able to say, "Look! We have Philo of Alexandria giving his own account of the crucifixion because he was there and stood at the cross and witnessed the earthquake, the darkness, the saints rising from the tombs, the veil in the Temple being torn in two. We have other historical accounts of historians who witnessed Jesus preaching because they wanted to see this man whose fame spread throughout the region even to Syria (as Luke claims). We have historical accounts of the apostles preaching and how and where they died. We have a gospel written by Jesus himself so we know exactly what he taught. We have all these autographs preserved today so how can anyone claim Jesus is not the Messiah????"
And why are the gospels in the Bible not good enough? The authors even went to the trouble of creating detailed genealogies to show how Christ came from King David's lineage. Why are the Dead Sea scrolls not good enough? If there were a 100 different historians writing about these events, atheists would find a way to discount them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Instead, all they can point to are the gospels and a couple of lines that use the word "Chrestians" from Tacitus and Sutonious written a hundred years afterward. That's all. A miserable track record from a God who wants us to believe in His son, Jesus.
This is what bothers me about Christianity more than anything else.
Most people didn't read or write back then. It would look probably more suspicious if you actually had numerous written personal eyewitness accounts. Even so, what does that proof? We have countless testimonies and videos of UFOs yet the debate rages on with that topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte I will give you the best honest answer I can, Pleroo because you deserve it--as one of the good guys (or gals) on this board:
I'd love to have meaningful communication with God because I could ask Him, "God, if you really want us to believe in your son, Jesus as our savior then why didn't you leave proof so irrefutable and incontrovertible that we wouldn't even need to debate it?"
And what good would that do really? God doesn't care about people who only believe. God is interested in those who sincerely want to know Him and surrender to Him. The Bible even says that the demons believe. Simply accepting that there is a God does not make you born again. God gave us the gift of life and asks us to give part of that life back to Him. That means your heart must desire to know God so much that you give up your self identity and desire for sin and then be born again with a new identity. So it doesn't surprise me that God doesn't put on a pony show for atheists. For those who do seek Him, the proof is out there.
Thrill says to Jeff:
Jeff, I appreciate you responding with what I believe is a sincere attempt at making me understand the fundamentalist's side of this debate. Let me say this:
There are many here, I'm sure who will tell you they sincerely wanted to know Him and tried and couldn't get anywhere with God and so they walked away--not because they were trying to get revenge on God with "Okay, God, you ignored me, now I'll show you how I can ignore you!"
Rather, they simply got tired of waiting around for God to get back to them and lost interest in the whole enterprise. Millions do this every year, this is why the Christian faith is shrinking in the USA and Europe and churches are boarding up their doors.
You say, "even the demons believe". Well, the demons have MORE reason to believe than we do, don't they, because they have seen God face to face and we have not. So I don't doubt the demons believe. Let God show me what the demons have seen and I will believe too.
Again, it is assumed that the sincere former Christians had everything you say they need to get to know God: desire to know God, willingness to do what He commands and the rest. But God never commanded, He never said a word so they said, "Well, nobody is listening, no one is at home so I'll leave". I think this is what happened to most former Christians. They can chime in with their experiences if they are reading this.
Quote:Originally Posted by thrillobyte
I have asked this question to myself hundreds of times since leaving Christianity and even asked it out loud a few times just to see if I'd get any response or sign from God, but so far....NOTHING.
This question, to me, is the biggest mystery about Christianity.
Why aren't Christians able to say, "Look! We have Philo of Alexandria giving his own account of the crucifixion because he was there and stood at the cross and witnessed the earthquake, the darkness, the saints rising from the tombs, the veil in the Temple being torn in two. We have other historical accounts of historians who witnessed Jesus preaching because they wanted to see this man whose fame spread throughout the region even to Syria (as Luke claims). We have historical accounts of the apostles preaching and how and where they died. We have a gospel written by Jesus himself so we know exactly what he taught. We have all these autographs preserved today so how can anyone claim Jesus is not the Messiah????"
And why are the gospels in the Bible not good enough? The authors even went to the trouble of creating detailed genealogies to show how Christ came from King David's lineage. Why are the Dead Sea scrolls not good enough? If there were a 100 different historians writing about these events, atheists would find a way to discount them.
Thrill says to Jeff:
Well, I think people are being prudent when they ask for a little more than just the gospels, given the gospels questionable origins.
When you buy a house don't you ask to see the Grant Deed proving that the guy trying to take your money has actual title to the house he is selling? Are you aware of how many people have lost their life's savings believing that a shyster peddling a house for sale was only a renter and not an owner?
Quote: Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Instead, all they can point to are the gospels and a couple of lines that use the word "Chrestians" from Tacitus and Sutonious written a hundred years afterward. That's all. A miserable track record from a God who wants us to believe in His son, Jesus.
This is what bothers me about Christianity more than anything else.
Most people didn't read or write back then. It would look probably more suspicious if you actually had numerous written personal eyewitness accounts. Even so, what does that proof? We have countless testimonies and videos of UFOs yet the debate rages on with that topic.[LEFT]
Read more: //www.city-data.com/forum/relig...#ixzz5gZesIRKu
Thrill says to Jeff:
We're not really concerned with the reading rate back then. We in the present are simply wondering why the 300 or so most prominent historians of the 1st Century never said a word about Jesus or the 12 apostles. Seems reasonable to me that if Jesus were as well known as Mark, Matthew and Luke say he was:
Quote:
News about him spread all over Syria, Matthew 4:24
Then at least a few historians in the area, most notably Philo of Alexandria who was in Jerusalem when Jesus was would have said at least a few words about him--Philo being the excellent historian we know him to be.
[/LEFT]
This is a typical atheist mistake. Refuting any specific religious beliefs ABOUT God does NOT disprove the existence of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
...and babbling incoherently about superstitious nonsense does NOT prove the existence of gods.
Sadly, what is incoherent is highly dependent upon the depth of knowledge in the receiver, Raff. Accusing your opponent of superstitious (or your favorite, "supernatural") arguments when he explicitly denounces such is "dirty pool" but you seem not to have any scruples about it.
And why are the gospels in the Bible not good enough?
I would like a (direct) answer to this as well. I watched the debate between Ehrman and Price, hoping to hear a good reason why Paul's letters and/or the gospels should be dismissed, why they didn't meet the standards for history of that time period, etc. But I finished the video disappointed.
I'm almost afraid to even ask how many people here are mythicists...
And why are the gospels in the Bible not good enough? The authors even went to the trouble of creating detailed genealogies to show how Christ came from King David's lineage.
...and both of them conflict. To overcome this prob;em the apologist try to claim that the onee is of Joseph and the other is of Mary, which is ludicrous if you actually read them. In addition, the lineage always went through the father, never the mother. Even the Bible says so:
And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Sadly, what is incoherent is highly dependent upon the depth of knowledge in the receiver, Raff.
Ah! So again, our level of intelligence just doesn't cut it when it comes to understanding you.
Quote:
Accusing your opponent of superstitious (or your favorite, "supernatural") arguments when he explicitly denounces such is "dirty pool" but you seem not to have any scruples about it.
No, I don't think I've ever used the word 'supernatural'. Superstition...yes.It is the correct word to describe theism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I would like a (direct) answer to this as well. I watched the debate between Ehrman and Price, hoping to hear a good reason why Paul's letters and/or the gospels should be dismissed, why they didn't meet the standards for history of that time period, etc. But I finished the video disappointed.
Look at that TRANS. An 'atheist' defending the gospels.
Quote:
I'm almost afraid to even ask how many people here are mythicists...
Me! I don't believe that there was a 'historical' Jesus and if there was, he is completely irrelevant today.
Look at that TRANS. An 'atheist' defending the gospels.
Lol, hey don't forget to email Bart Ehrman and tell him he's a Christian too!
Quote:
Me! I don't believe that there was a 'historical' Jesus
And why not? Because somebody was able to find a few loose "parallels" in other stories? Or because when it comes to the subject of the Christians' faith we have to change the rules and no longer employ the historical method?
It matters not to me. If such a person did exist then there was no comparison to the gospel version. If anything, 'Jesus' was an itinerant rebel rabbi who lost his head for shouting his mouth off. He has no relevance today.
It matters not to me. If such a person did exist then there was no comparison to the gospel version. If anything, 'Jesus' was an itinerant rebel rabbi who lost his head for shouting his mouth off. He has no relevance today.
for you, a person showing us that they were struggling with the same issues has no relevance. To others, that lesson is relevant. i don't see your position any more/less valid than theirs.
Now, if we are talking about the claim of the gospels being the word god, thats a different topic. and, if we are addressing the gospels in a manor that answers to anti-religious, then relevance can look different.
back to "Is determining the validly of a claim based on anti-theist the best method?"
for me, the answer is no. when we filter everything through anti-theist it looks theist in the head.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a typical atheist mistake. Refuting any specific religious beliefs ABOUT God does NOT disprove the existence of God.
Accusing your opponent of superstitious (or your favorite, "supernatural") arguments when he explicitly denounces such is "dirty pool" but you seem not to have any scruples about it.
