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.
But to translate for you, when we atheists do something for our fellow man, we do it just because it's the right thing to do, not because some being told us we had to.
It's obvious they do. You do. It's why you're so snarky and rude. You have a desire to know your creator but you are suppressing that. It's like the kid that Momma doesn't hug enough so he takes it out by punching other kids on the playground. If you'd just let yourself go to your savior, you'd be a much nicer person.
Not if they actually believe the Gospel. So, no....that's not what Christians believe. Many people that identify as Christians may believe that, though.
Primitive Christians believe all you need do to suck up to their god-thing and get the keys to heaven, is say the Magic Words To Jesus.
That's it. No good deeds. No charitable works required. Just say the Magic Words To Jesus.
No wonder Christian fundamentalism is attractive to the lazy and selfish.
So no christians believe they will get into heaven via their good deeds?
It's a mainstream Christian doctrine that salvation is a free gift by the grace of God, and good deeds won't earn anything. That's in theory. In practice, many add other hoops to go through such as correct beliefs, behaviors, good deeds, rituals, sacraments etc. because of the human tendency to be unable to handle love offered freely without condition or barrier. The idea is that once a recipient of such love, a person will offer love unconditionally to others.
Last edited by kmom2; 10-02-2019 at 12:53 PM..
Reason: added last sentence
It's obvious they do. You do. It's why you're so snarky and rude. You have a desire to know your creator but you are suppressing that. It's like the kid that Momma doesn't hug enough so he takes it out by punching other kids on the playground. If you'd just let yourself go to your savior, you'd be a much nicer person.
A nice person like you, Finn Jarber, jeffbase, and Kjoke.
I agree. While it's nice to have multiple independent sources confirming some person or event, often it's just looking at one written source and trying to decide how much of it we can believe. The thing with the claims for Christianity, there is Far less historical support for any of it than is often claimed and a lot of reason to suppose that some of it is tall tales.
No Massacre of Innocents, No Nativity (really, not)
No Nazareth (Jesus was more probably born in Capernaum, where he lived, pretty much, all through the gospel story.
No 'passover release' custom.
No procession of Zombie saints through the streets of Jerusalem on Resurrection night.
Given that appeals to the disciples and later adherents must have known the resurrection happened really not adding up to a row of beans, independent historical references to Jesus not adding up to much more (Even Tacitus looks to be just repeating Christian claims) it comes down to the Book. The one book (or collection of several) and what they say. Though I think we get a special problem - what the Gospels claim is demonstrably Not what the early Christians seem to have claimed.
I agree that the stark choice that faces us is 'Nobody knows for sure...especially about the past. So either we toss it all aside and just pick what we want (and i for one don't see 'personal Experiences' as confirming much more than that )or try to come to some conclusions, bearing in mind that there could always be a complete overturn of evidence.
What seems clear is that first course is fine - so long as nobody claims that they are the only ones who have the right belief. For the latter - the more the confirmatory evidence piles up, the less reason there is to say it isn't right. That's why history while maybe not science, comes pretty close to it at times.
Here's what my research has uncovered:
Prior to Paul there was zilch, nada--NOTHING to show Christianity even existed. This means the "creed: that apologists like Mike555 love to trot out to "prove" the resurrection was a belief as early as 35 CE is totally bogus. The first time this so-called creed shows up is 55 CE in 1st Corinthians and how do we know Paul didn't invent the whole thing since we only have his word for it and nothing else.
Now we have no autographs of the epistles just as we have to autographs of the gospels so we take on pure faith alone that the epistles were written when the scholars say they were although there isn't a written record they even existed until late 2nd century. But if we're to take on faith Paul wrote the epistles 55-65 CE then the epistles are the first mention anywhere of something called Christianity. At that early a date (55-65 CE) Paul can be said to be the "founder" of Christianity since we have nothing before that to prove Christianity existed earlier than 55 CE. Then come the gospels 20-50 years after the epistles and they try to make the previous celestial Jesus Paul wrote about and spoke of into a real flesh-and-blood human Jesus.
All this shows a gradual evolution of the religion called Christianity over a 200-400 year period until Theodosius makes Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.
Christianity is not a religion with a solid foundation. It's history is ambiguous, sketchy, and opaque and anyone who studies its history in depth doesn't get any sort of sense that this religion is anything a person can rely on for their salvation other than what one is willing to take strictly on faith without any evidence.
Thousands of people shared and acknowledged Jesus' resurrection before a Bible was ever put together. That already gives evidence and speaks for itself. That came first, the Bible later; not the other way around, as pushed in the bogus premise of this thread.
And where's your extra-Biblical evidence for this, Thoreau? Or is this another one of your
"The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!"
Thousands of people shared and acknowledged Jesus' resurrection before a Bible was ever put together. That already gives evidence and speaks for itself. That came first, the Bible later; not the other way around, as pushed in the bogus premise of this thread.
True.
The New Testament was compiled on the basis of what Christians already believed to be true from oral teachings and traditions handed down to them. If a book didn't reflect what they already believed, then it simply wasn't included in the canon of scripture.
It's like with someone's family history. If you grew up hearing stories about uncle Jim's Alaskan fishing trip (not as significant I know), perhaps he made a diary to read, but you don't question the reality of the story just because there may not be any other remaining evidence of the trip.
If people don't believe because they can't find enough scientific proof to suit them, that's their business.
To start thread after thread about their "concerns"? I mean, to use Sola Scriptura against itself as a way to try to disprove the Bible.. utterly fascinating.
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.
)or try to come to some conclusions, bearing in mind that there could always be a complete overturn of evidence. 
