NationStates Jolt Archive

I just want to know why all of the other Christians are Christians.

I'm a Christian, mainly because of the argument that Jesus was either who he says he is, a liar, or a lunatic. Evidence shows that he's not a liar or a lunatic, so...
I grew up in a Christian home: my father is a preacher, (chaplain, actually, for anyone who know's what that is). So I was raised on the Christian faith since I was very young.
I have been a "Christian" since I was four, but it took a long time for that decision to really sink in. Over time I became more and more aware of God in my life. Now, i don't have as good a relationship as I'd like, but i'm working towards it.

Ahhh the Trilema arguement. What is your reasoning/evidence of it?

Sounds like you're a Christian cos your parents wanted you to be. What do you get out of it? Surely that's the most important reason for believing in something?

Get a gun, wave a flag...Jesus loves you!

Ah, influence. It's always fun.

As long as you believe in it because it feels right... That's good (at least religious wise until it becomes fanatical)

Yeah, I'm not a Christian just because my dad's a preacher. I just think it's the only logical explaination...

As for evidence of the one argument:
If he was a liar, why did he die for it? (or his desciples; they died too). He could/would have denied it, and saved himself.
That would make him a lunatic, but if he's lunatic, you can't base morals and principles on him, can you? (I mean, a lot of the moral issues that even avid atheists believe are based on Jesus' teachings). So you'd be saying that a lunatic is right, mostly, which just doesn't happen (look at the people in mental hospitals. Are they sane? Do any of them act like Jesus? No). And, he didn't act like a lunatic, he just didn't.
Which means the most likely story is that he is who he says he is.

And I don't like the ideas of the other religions out there. They just don't always make sense, or explain everything, etc.

The fact that the Bible is the #1 best seller of all time, and the #1 most hated book.

The fact that there are probably more divisions in Christianity than in any other religion.

And, though you may not believe it, I feel like God is there. That is something personal, and there's really no proof I can offer; I just know that God is there: he has touched me, and spoken to me. There's no other way to say it.

And, despite what others say, think, and do, there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (If you want to debate this, fine, make a new thread. I can disprove anything you throw at me :wink: )

The fact that Christians are the most hated religion. Name one religion more hated than Christianity...Well, the Jews, of course, but that's actually profesied in the Bible.

There are a lot of little profesies that show it to be true. (Jesus' appearance profesied 500 some years before he came...The jews rejecting him as the Christ had been foreseen...stuff like that)

They found Noah's Arc. Stuff like that...

Um...I could probably think of some more, but I have work to do.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that Christianity is the only possible religion, just that it's the most likely. And if Christianity is true, that means that the others aren't. So, that's what I believe.

i know someone who apparently said the reason he's catholic is because if God doesn't exist then what's there to lose and if God does exist then he'll go to heaven, i think this is completely stupid!

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that Christianity is the only possible religion, just that it's the most likely. And if Christianity is true, that means that the others aren't. So, that's what I believe.


How do you know that Christianity is the only possible religion? Have you researched into other religions? And how is Christianity incompatible with Buddhism?

i know someone who apparently said the reason he's catholic is because if God doesn't exist then what's there to lose and if God does exist then he'll go to heaven, i think this is completely stupid!

Pascal's wager, you would think an omniscient god could see through that loophole wouldn't you?

Those in the habit of thinking things through don't generally stay christians for very long anymore.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that Christianity is the only possible religion, just that it's the most likely. And if Christianity is true, that means that the others aren't. So, that's what I believe.

If you told me that there were 1000 religions out there, and 999 of them were completely untrue, but this one was right - I would tell you you were crazy (loosely paraphrased from C.S. Lewis). I agree with him - Christianity is not perfect, I just believe it is more right than other religions. But it is perfectly likely that all religions have some part of the truth.

Saying that if Christianity is true, all the others aren't shows that you are either unable or unwilling to actually go out and research other religions to see where they might agree or disagree with you.

Those in the habit of thinking things through don't generally stay christians for very long anymore.

This is purely your opinion, so please don't state it as fact.

I agree with everything Late Earth. I can't really put it any better myself and if I tried I'd be spending way to much time on these forums.

Although, saying that you will disprove anything they throw at you... That's opening up a can of worms that you do not want to open.

Overall though, excellent. I'm praying for you.

And Pascal's wager was not only a brilliant piece of reasoning, but also something that I take into account a lot.

Really. Look at it. I'm wrong, we all turn to dust, I lose getting to sleep around. I'm right, we have a soul, I live forever in eternity and perfection with the most awesome being in the universe and beyond.

Not trying to be argumentative, but....

Yeah, I'm not a Christian just because my dad's a preacher. I just think it's the only logical explaination...

As for evidence of the one argument:
If he was a liar, why did he die for it? (or his desciples; they died too). He could/would have denied it, and saved himself.
That would make him a lunatic, but if he's lunatic, you can't base morals and principles on him, can you? (I mean, a lot of the moral issues that even avid atheists believe are based on Jesus' teachings). So you'd be saying that a lunatic is right, mostly, which just doesn't happen (look at the people in mental hospitals. Are they sane? Do any of them act like Jesus? No). And, he didn't act like a lunatic, he just didn't.
Which means the most likely story is that he is who he says he is.


This is, I assume, not based on your personal knowledge of people in insane asylums?One could argue that his drive towards martyrdom was a bit nutty. Like suicide by cop... and many of his disciples lived on for a very long time after as well so I'm not sure the point you were trying to make about them.

As to whether an insane person can or cannot make a good moral argument, that is also moot. I've heard the odd nutbar on a streetcorner babbling about God and his wishes as well...And I would suggest that much of the morals in the bible (i.e. th Ten Commandments etc.) were not related to Jesus himself but rather were defined in other parts of the Bible. The fact that people follow them is the same reason that Jews follow the Torah - faith.

I'm sure that the followers of David Koresh will tell you that he preached a strong moral cause, and he and many of they were equally willing to die for their cause. Does that make David Koresh the Son of God too?

And I don't like the ideas of the other religions out there. They just don't always make sense, or explain everything, etc.


What exactly does the life of Jesus explain that the Torah does not - besides him appointing himself as everyone's personal saviour they are based on identical texts. For that matter, what does the bible explain that the Silmarillion does not?


The fact that the Bible is the #1 best seller of all time, and the #1 most hated book.


What exactly does that equate to? Using that as a guideline I must presume that Harlequin Romances are the most accurate depictions of love and sex in today's world...

The fact that there are probably more divisions in Christianity than in any other religion.


Actually - that goes against your argument that the Bible explains everything so well and so clearly. After all, nobody seems able to agree on it's interpretation hence all of the schisms and various flavours of Christianity. If it were so clear, surely all would accept a single interpretation?

And, though you may not believe it, I feel like God is there. That is something personal, and there's really no proof I can offer; I just know that God is there: he has touched me, and spoken to me. There's no other way to say it.


I hope that this belief provides you comfort. Not everyone feels that way however.

And, despite what others say, think, and do, there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (If you want to debate this, fine, make a new thread. I can disprove anything you throw at me :wink: )


Even if one were to accept that premise - why does a non-self contradicting book make it neccessarily true? The Lord of the Rings Trilogy doesn't contradict itself. Does that make it true?

The fact that Christians are the most hated religion. Name one religion more hated than Christianity...Well, the Jews, of course, but that's actually profesied in the Bible.

What does that have to do with the veracity of the Christian faith? People hate you because you are right and they know it? An arrogant thought indeed, and far from the truth.

There are a lot of little profesies that show it to be true. (Jesus' appearance profesied 500 some years before he came...The jews rejecting him as the Christ had been foreseen...stuff like that)


Prophesized where exactly?

And even if true, if you took every cult's prophesies today and waited a few hundred year - I'm sure one or two will have lucked out.

They found Noah's Arc. Stuff like that...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.

Um...I could probably think of some more, but I have work to do.

So - you came just to post a substative declaration to a discussion board... and then just leave? Not very good etiquette...

-Z-

Dangit Zeppistan, you beat me to it again! Honestly, I don't know why I bother anymore ;).

Dangit Zeppistan, you beat me to it again! Honestly, I don't know why I bother anymore ;).

Because you have an insatiable urge to beat him!

Dangit Zeppistan, you beat me to it again! Honestly, I don't know why I bother anymore ;).

Oh, I still need people to fill in while I'm on vacation! lol.

To be honest though, I have nothing against faith. I just love picking apart a baddly crafted argument. Somedays I'm tempted to create a Republican puppet just to go after some of the ultra-left weenies who give liberals a bad name....

:twisted:

-Z-

Not trying to be argumentative, but....

They found Noah's Arc. Stuff like that...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.

Oh come on now Zeppistan, you recall when they found Noah's Arc? It was on all the news! CNN covered it too I think.. They found it right beside Area 51, the UFO was right beside it.. oh and don't forget that was the same day they discovered the fountain of youth. Doesn't any one watch the news any more! LOL.. :mrgreen:

Umm Late Earth.. exactly when did some one claim to discover Noah's Arc? I think maybe you haven't been paying enough attention to your Daddy's sermons..lol :P

A religion is true to the culture and time that it best represents. If you truly believe in it, it will help influence your daily living. If not, than that religion may not be for you. When looking at the bible for moral guidance, you have to keep in mind how old parts of it are. Nothing in it is even remotely modern. So any advice you get from the bible may very well be out of time. Basically it needs modern influence. Hell putting parts in that come from the middle ages would be nice. Charlemagne, the Crusades, the reformation, should all be added into some Christian holy book. Then we can get to more modern stuff like the World Wars. Eisenhower’s D-Day speech is loaded with religious tones. Those who practice the old time religion allow themselves to become stagnant.

Umm Late Earth.. exactly when did some one claim to discover Noah's Arc? I think maybe you haven't been paying enough attention to your Daddy's sermons..lol :P
Actually I've seen something on TV about it a while ago. I forget exactly what station had it though, it was a long time ago. Basically they found part of a ship on a mountain. They showed hazy aerial photographs, then a team went on the mountain to get a closer look. Basically though it looked like it was in too good of a condition to be thousands of years old and too small to house a lot of animals, but I've never seen a thousand year old ship let along one that was frozen in a mountain. So I have nothing to compare it to.

Umm Late Earth.. exactly when did some one claim to discover Noah's Arc? I think maybe you haven't been paying enough attention to your Daddy's sermons..lol :P
Actually I've seen something on TV about it a while ago. I forget exactly what station had it though, it was a long time ago. Basically they found part of a ship on a mountain. They showed hazy aerial photographs, then a team went on the mountain to get a closer look. Basically though it looked like it was in too good of a condition to be thousands of years old and too small to house a lot of animals, but I've never seen a thousand year old ship let along one that was frozen in a mountain. So I have nothing to compare it to.

It was some dude back in the 70's.. he found an old piece of wood. They thought perhaps it might be Noah's Arc, it was discredited as such within a week. No one has ever found the mythical Arc!

The arc thing:
They found what is most likely to be the hull of a rather large ship, sitting on top of a mountain. They did research on the mountain, and it seems to be the same mountain that the arc was supposed to land on. And, when you think about it, how many ships end up on top of mountains?

The other religion thing:
I never said they were completely wrong, just that they aren't all right.
A preacher did a sermon about this a while back, and he had a good example:
We have a jar filled with oh, say, 300 marbles. Jeudaism says there are 200 marbles in the jar. This is true, but it's not the whole truth: there are actually 300, so Jeudaism is missing some. Some, like Mormonism, say there are 400. They've added too much. Others don't even come close. So, even if many are partially true, they don't explain everything, or try to explain too much, etc.

A religion is true to the culture and time that it best represents. If you truly believe in it, it will help influence your daily living. If not, than that religion may not be for you. When looking at the bible for moral guidance, you have to keep in mind how old parts of it are. Nothing in it is even remotely modern. So any advice you get from the bible may very well be out of time. Basically it needs modern influence. Hell putting parts in that come from the middle ages would be nice. Charlemagne, the Crusades, the reformation, should all be added into some Christian holy book. Then we can get to more modern stuff like the World Wars. Eisenhower’s D-Day speech is loaded with religious tones. Those who practice the old time religion allow themselves to become stagnant.

Eh, not really. The moral truths don't really change. I don't know about you, but i'm pretty sure that murder, stealing, lying, etc. are still wrong.

And, you just can't add to the Bible...doesn't work that way...

The fact that the Bible is the #1 best seller of all time, and the #1 most hated book.

What exactly does that equate to? Using that as a guideline I must presume that Harlequin Romances are the most accurate depictions of love and sex in today's world...

That's just showing that there has to be something different about this particular book. If there wasn't, it'd be just like any other book. Not really hated, not really loved, either.

The fact that there are probably more divisions in Christianity than in any other religion.

Actually - that goes against your argument that the Bible explains everything so well and so clearly. After all, nobody seems able to agree on it's interpretation hence all of the schisms and various flavours of Christianity. If it were so clear, surely all would accept a single interpretation?

Not really. Actually, that would say to me that there's a lot more in this book than anything else. If so many people have to try so much harder to understand this book, then there must be something special about it.

Actually, the guy who claimed to have found the Ark was not a scientist but rather somebody who seems to have made a career out of his claim.

Even scientist who are dedicated to trying to prove elements of the bible dismiss his claim (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-231.htm)

And while I respect your faith, the notion that Christians have "just the right amount of marbles" is just too easy an opening....but I'll pass.

I don't question that the Bible has been very well read, often interpreted, and is sacred to many.

However that does not in any way lend itself to the notion that it is "more true" than other religions.

Hell, at one point disco was the most popular thing going. Didn't make it good music....

And at various points the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and most of today's modern conveniences would have got you burned at the stake for witchcraft if you could take some back through time with you. The point being that popular beliefs are not neccessarily valid. They are just .... popular!

I'm not attempting to argue the existance of God. I'm just stating that the points presented by the original poster as being relevant to that argument aren't any substative confirmation as to the book's validity.

-Z-

Yeah, i wasn't trying to argue at first. Read the first post: I was just looking for some other Christians to give their testimony.

When it all comes down to it, there's not enough proof either way. You have to take it on faith (or an atheist's equivilant). I do respect that not everyone believes like I do, but that doesn't mean I believe it's right.

In another thread about gay rights a long time ago, i mentioned the difference between tolerance and acceptance...

I'm going for acceptance: I know I'm lucky to get tolerance, and I know that people will hate me, but hey, this is what I believe.

Thank you to all of the people who have respected my beliefs. Y'all are more civilized than many who call themselves Christian.

To those who haven't...well...I'm not going to say anything...

Eh, not really. The moral truths don't really change. I don't know about you, but i'm pretty sure that murder, stealing, lying, etc. are still wrong.

Not to mention adultery...incest...rape...mutilation...cannibalism... genocide... dashing newborn babies' heads against rocks... (just skimming through my bible and seeing some of the stuff Yahweh condones or outright demands.) You should try reading this thing sometime, it's captivatingly brutal and sordid.

I believe Jesus lives because he lives, and I've felt him in my life. And nothing says I have to prove my knowledge to any of you.

Eh, not really. The moral truths don't really change. I don't know about you, but i'm pretty sure that murder, stealing, lying, etc. are still wrong.

Not to mention adultery...incest...rape...mutilation...cannibalism... genocide... dashing newborn babies' heads against rocks... (just skimming through my bible and seeing some of the stuff Yahweh condones or outright demands.) You should try reading this thing sometime, it's captivatingly brutal and sordid.

To be fair to the Bible, you are taking the "dashing newborn babies' heads against rocks" thing out of context. But it is true that the bible isn't the best book to choose if you want to read about living a 'moral' life (Tom Paine said it well in The Age of Reason, I wonder if anyone has the quotation).

But Late Earth you fail to see those things are also wrong because of the social contract. And I find it worrying that the only thing stopping you from commiting murder, stealing, lying, etc. is an invisible spirit entity who may/may not exist.

I believe Jesus lives because he lives

Round and round and round we go on the logical nightmare roundabout. Weeeeeeeeeee!

And nothing says I have to prove my knowledge to any of you.

Well, you can't prove it because it's a belief, not knowledge. If it was knowledge I'd be be doing a whole lot of repenting right now.

Probably wouldn't be planning for the numerous parties I'll be having while my rents are away to God Camp.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha.

I believe Jesus lives because he lives

Round and round and round we go on the logical nightmare roundabout. Weeeeeeeeeee!

And nothing says I have to prove my knowledge to any of you.

Well, you can't prove it because it's a belief, not knowledge. If it was knowledge I'd be be doing a whole lot of repenting right now.

Probably wouldn't be planning for the numerous parties I'll be having while my rents are away to God Camp.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha.That's a nice belief you have there...

I believe Jesus lives because he lives

Round and round and round we go on the logical nightmare roundabout. Weeeeeeeeeee!

And nothing says I have to prove my knowledge to any of you.

Well, you can't prove it because it's a belief, not knowledge. If it was knowledge I'd be be doing a whole lot of repenting right now.

Probably wouldn't be planning for the numerous parties I'll be having while my rents are away to God Camp.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha.That's a nice belief you have there...

Wait, do you have concrete, conclusive proof that Jesus Christ lives right now? In the traditional, scientific sense of the word "alive"? Not some stupid metaphysical, spiritual sense of the word? Because if you do, it'd be real nice if you shared your knowledge with the rest of us so we can all prepare for judgement.

Maybe you missed me say this:
I have no reason to prove my knowledge to any of you.

That's a nice belief you have there...

What, that I should use my house to it's fullest extent in providing frolickin fun for my friends?

I wasn't attacking your belief, I'm not going to immpose on anyone's superstitions, I'm merley correcting your statement that your Christianity is 'knowledge'.

Maybe you missed me say this:
I have no reason to prove my knowledge to any of you.

Yeah, but if you do have knowledge that Jesus Christ is walking the Earth right now, it'd be real nice of you if you shared that knowledge so we could all prepare. Or are you just going to be selfish and withhold that information? Because I think God might deem that making you unworthy of heaven.

That's a nice belief you have there...

What, that I should use my house to it's fullest extent in providing frolickin fun for my friends?

I wasn't attacking your belief, I'm not going to immpose on anyone's superstitions, I'm merley correctin your statement that your Christianity is 'knowledge'.what IS knowledge?

dictionary.com:
2 Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3 The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
5 Specific information about something.

Those definitions seem to fit. Why should I conform to your narrow definition of what knowledge is?

Maybe you missed me say this:
I have no reason to prove my knowledge to any of you.

Yeah, but if you do have knowledge that Jesus Christ is walking the Earth right now, it'd be real nice of you if you shared that knowledge so we could all prepare. Or are you just going to be selfish and withhold that information? Because I think God might deem that making you unworthy of heaven.I didn't say he walked the Earth Right now...

And yeah, I do share that knowledge.. that's why I'm a missionary :P I leave for my 2-year mission to do JUST THAT this summer.

Maybe you missed me say this:
I have no reason to prove my knowledge to any of you.

Except that one of the tenents of Christianity is evengelism. Your meant to get out there and save some souls! Witholding information about direct knowledge of a living God might be somewhat detremental to our spiritual health, not to mention sneaky.

Eh, not really. The moral truths don't really change. I don't know about you, but i'm pretty sure that murder, stealing, lying, etc. are still wrong.

And, you just can't add to the Bible...doesn't work that way...
Not all things change. Most of it on the other hand does over time. People need more modern stories to relate to. Sure the old ones are great, but their accuracy in today’s culture is less than admirable. I'm not asking for a huge addition, just things that are slightly more modern. A dynamic religion is better than a stagnant one.

watch Dogma
Learn
Understand
Get an idea

-* Maybe change the world *-
to debunk your "why did he die for it" many a monk and religious wannabe have allowed themselves to be killed becouse they believe, and you obviously havn't met a huge number of insane people... alot are very interesting and insightful.
Anyway why hold up banners and why not just have faith that there is something of some sort and just lead good lives... keep your religions and your flags away from me, I don't need them, don't want them, don't know why they exist...
One religious parchment infact could destroy the whole concept of organised religion by saying that wherever you were god was aswell, in every tree and bird in every rock and person so that you didn't need any form of organised religion just faith that things could get better and even if they don't as long as you live a good life then you can be happy in that knowledge. Even if there is no heaven or hell that is a far more important message than any I've ever seen in religions...

Maybe you missed me say this:
I have no reason to prove my knowledge to any of you.

Come on, don't play with words.. it should read..

Maybe you missed me say this:I have no reason to prove my FAITH to any of you.

You don't have any knowledge or proof of any thing any more then the rest of us have. You believe, that's kewl. You have nothing to back it up cept you have faith.. don't go making it sound like "fact" when it's not. That's all I ask.

Ok, first off, tell me ONE moral issue that has changed since the time of Jesus.

Second, does that mean that all the life stories of oh, say, Shakespear are false because they're old? No. Human nature, hasn't changed. We still do the things that Jesus addressed 2000 years ago.


The Great Leveller wrote:
But Late Earth you fail to see those things are also wrong because of the social contract. And I find it worrying that the only thing stopping you from commiting murder, stealing, lying, etc. is an invisible spirit entity who may/may not exist.


First off, no, it's not the only thing stopping me. But here's a question for you: what stops you from doing those things?

:oops:

:oops:

First off, no, it's not the only thing stopping me. But here's a question for you: what stops you from doing those things?

Empathy for the human race.

But also it rarely, if ever, in my interests to do these things.



btw, you say human nature hasn't changed. But, what is human nature?

Ok, first off, tell me ONE moral issue that has changed since the time of Jesus.

It is no longer considered obscene to gesture with or touch another human being with the left hand (in Jewish or Christian society anyways - it is still obscene in Muslim society). This is absolutely integral in understanding "turn the other cheek".

In Jesus' time, a person who saw nudity was meant to be ashamed. In today's society, a person who is nude is meant to be ashamed, while those that might accidentally see it are not. This is integral to understanding Christ's admonishment that if you are sued for your outer garment, you should give them your inner as well.

A woman who has a disease that causes her to bleed continuously is no longer seen as cursed by God because she is evil.

Men are not expected to marry their brother's wife if no child has been conceived.

I could come up with more....

Second, does that mean that all the life stories of oh, say, Shakespear are false because they're old? No. Human nature, hasn't changed. We still do the things that Jesus addressed 2000 years ago.

No, but the stories have to be interpreted in a way that applies to today's society. No one has said any of Christ's stories were false anyways. I would state that some of the laws included in the OT are false (some even specifically refuted in the NT), but those were laws written by men who believed they were doing the will of God, not by Jesus.

Ok, first off, tell me ONE moral issue that has changed since the time of Jesus.
People of varying religions will debate different things about how certain morals have changed. There are some religions that no longer view homosexuality as being immoral. The clergy used to be able to marry and have kids. The Catholic church used to believe that people could basically just buy their way into heaven. The last two were just a couple reasons that the protestant reformation was so successful. The Mormons used to believe in polygamy. Need I continue?

Second, does that mean that all the life stories of oh, say, Shakespear are false because they're old? No. Human nature, hasn't changed. We still do the things that Jesus addressed 2000 years ago.
I never said that it made them false, nor was I implying that it made them false. What I was saying is that the more modern the aspects of the story are the more people can relate to them.

First off, no, it's not the only thing stopping me. But here's a question for you: what stops you from doing those things?

Empathy for the human race.

But also it rarely, if ever, in my interests to do these things.



btw, you say human nature hasn't changed. But, what is human nature?


Your empathy for the human race is a learned behavior, taught to you by your parents and the people around you. Whether conscious or not, the world around you affects your empathy or lack thereof. For proof I offer the behavior of "spoiled brats" reguarding other people, people who come from empoverished environments who have to resort to theft to live, etc.

My empathy for the human race is a learned trait from my parents, and from the Bible.

As for human nature changing, it doesn't. You can either teach someone something is right, or you can teach them something is wrong. There is nothing else to it. There is no issue that the Bible doesn't address that we have to deal with today.

Human nature in itself is what we learn. It is what makes us different from our closest relatives, the chimps and apes and such. Homo sapiens, literally, "Walking thing that thinks". (Not a direct translation, of course, but you get the idea.) Our ability to have moral issues at all is what makes us sentient beings. But, there are still patterns that are learned onto us. We don't follow the exact pattern, but generally, we stick to what we think to be right.

Though i know a lot of people are going to yell at me for saying this: THERE ARE ABSOLUTE TRUTHS!

Whether I'm right, or someone else is, someone has to be right. Since no one can prove that they are right without dying, some faith will have to come into the equation. Atheists have faith that they are right and there is no God (Yes, faith. If you want me to look the word up and prove it I will, but even atheists have faith). I have faith that I'm right. Either way, we can't prove it 100%. I don't believe in Christianity 100%, but I believe it more than enough for me to base my faith on it.

Some of you only have 2% or so of proof of the Christian religion, and I can try to give you enough that you will change, but there can never be 100% until you die and go to heaven or hell.

On the other hand, there will never be 100% proof that there is no God. So, anyone who wants exact proof of God, you're not going to get it. You will have to take it on faith. Unfortunately, Christians rarely get the benefit of the doubt.

I forget who said it, but "Silence always helps the oppressor, never the oppressed." Same goes for Christianity. The "silence" of the proof necessary to show 100% either way will always help atheists, never Christians (And yes, I also mean that quote literally: Christians are being oppressed. I'll debate that in another thread if you want).

So, stop asking for exact proof, and start looking at what proof there is. You're all being very narrow minded, and hypocritical: You'll only accept something with 100% proof (which is closeminded), and you claim to accept something that does have 100% proof, but you can never back that up (Hypocritical).

No, i'm not calling you all names to piss you off. I'm just trying to show you that you need to open up and think about these things abstractly, instead of thinking like machines. You all think like the people from Fahrenheit 451. Read the passage from my thread about it. You all think like them, but you say that those people are stupid, and would never do something like that. I hate to tell you, but you are headed that direction.

Your empathy for the human race is a learned behavior, taught to you by your parents and the people around you. Whether conscious or not, the world around you affects your empathy or lack thereof. For proof I offer the behavior of "spoiled brats" reguarding other people, people who come from empoverished environments who have to resort to theft to live, etc.

My empathy for the human race is a learned trait from my parents, and from the Bible.

We're alike then. Because I also learned my empathy from the Bible. When I lost my faith I didn't start from scratch (in terms of belief, morals/ethics/whatever you want to call them). Christianinty has some very good ideas (but they are not unique to Christianity).

I'm not quite sure what your insinuating by your first paragraph, but it seems to be that my empathy stems (essentially) from a patronising world view because I feel sorry for those who were less lucky than me. Which is not the case, as I mentioned before I still have "Christian" beliefs, namely "Do unto others....."

As for human nature changing, it doesn't. You can either teach someone something is right, or you can teach them something is wrong. There is nothing else to it. There is no issue that the Bible doesn't address that we have to deal with today.

Human nature in itself is what we learn. It is what makes us different from our closest relatives, the chimps and apes and such. Homo sapiens, literally, "Walking thing that thinks". (Not a direct translation, of course, but you get the idea.) Our ability to have moral issues at all is what makes us sentient beings. But, there are still patterns that are learned onto us. We don't follow the exact pattern, but generally, we stick to what we think to be right. You assert that human nature is unchanging, but surely the fact that is learned implies change? You have not stated what human nature is, in a way that makes it consistent with you claim is that it is a learned behaviour. Surely the name implies it is something inherent unto our species, which means it cannot be both learned and inherent.

Though i know a lot of people are going to yell at me for saying this: THERE ARE ABSOLUTE TRUTHS!

1+1=2. There done it. Proved an absolute truth, and evaded a debate on something which is based apon belief.

Whether I'm right, or someone else is, someone has to be right. Since no one can prove that they are right without dying, some faith will have to come into the equation. Atheists have faith that they are right and there is no God (Yes, faith. If you want me to look the word up and prove it I will, but even atheists have faith). I have faith that I'm right. Either way, we can't prove it 100%. I don't believe in Christianity 100%, but I believe it more than enough for me to base my faith on it.

Surely due to the fragmentory nature of christianity, it is impossible to "believe in Christianity 100%?"

Some of you only have 2% or so of proof of the Christian religion, and I can try to give you enough that you will change, but there can never be 100% until you die and go to heaven or hell.

On the other hand, there will never be 100% proof that there is no God. So, anyone who wants exact proof of God, you're not going to get it. You will have to take it on faith. Unfortunately, Christians rarely get the benefit of the doubt.

You cannot prove a negative, o how I hate cliches

I forget who said it, but "Silence always helps the oppressor, never the oppressed." Same goes for Christianity. The "silence" of the proof necessary to show 100% either way will always help atheists, never Christians (And yes, I also mean that quote literally: Christians are being oppressed. I'll debate that in another thread if you want). [/quote]
You do that.

So, stop asking for exact proof, and start looking at what proof there is. You're all being very narrow minded, and hypocritical: You'll only accept something with 100% proof (which is closeminded), and you claim to accept something that does have 100% proof, but you can never back that up (Hypocritical).

No, i'm not calling you all names to piss you off. I'm just trying to show you that you need to open up and think about these things abstractly, instead of thinking like machines. You all think like the people from Fahrenheit 451. Read the passage from my thread about it. You all think like them, but you say that those people are stupid, and would never do something like that. I hate to tell you, but you are headed that direction.

I didn't mean to ask for proof, I was merely asking for your definition (although rereading of my question did highlight my error). I don't only accept something until it has 100% proof, but I think it is best to have a bit of skeptism.

So if we don't believe in God, we go to Hell? Personally I wouldn't worship a God like that. It doesn't sound like a superior deity, but one with a complex who has to 'rule' through fear. (Please, the server is playing up so I cannot check what you wrote regarding Fahrenheit 451, but I probably don't think that they are stupid, but I'll get back to you when read the passage.)

Y'know, I'm gonna take a big leap off the edge end and land squarely on the fence. Hope I don't can myself.

To Late Earth:

As much as I like you, you do seem to have this penchant for diving head-first into remarkably shallow water. I mean, it was like that when I met you, too...was it not your very first post that was a rather confrontational challenge for people to point out inconsistencies in the Bible, so that you might refute them?


I'm a Christian, mainly because of the argument that Jesus was either who he says he is, a liar, or a lunatic. Evidence shows that he's not a liar or a lunatic, so...


See, here's where it starts. You've made a statement...and then you've done the immature thing and left the statement unqualified. You and I both agree that Jesus was not a liar or crazy, but why is it that we can make such a claim? It's easy enough to explain — if we accept the Biblical account(s) of Jesus' life as fact, then we accept that Jesus was God...and God does not lie. You can then point to evidence of the historicity of events in the Bible, and form an argument from there. Not so hard, is it?

You can't be lazy about these things? God is like any general in this sense, and you're from a military family so you should understand this: a general does not want lazy soldiers. Neither does God want lazy propehts.


I grew up in a Christian home: my father is a preacher, (chaplain, actually, for anyone who know's what that is). So I was raised on the Christian faith since I was very young.


That's all well and good, but this is what people jump on. You hint at something resembling a reason for your faith, but leave it unqualified. Instead, you say this, and what everyone reads from this is "daddy told me to be a Christian". And, quite frankly, they're right to...you've offered no evidence to any greater meaning behind your faith.


I have been a "Christian" since I was four, but it took a long time for that decision to really sink in. Over time I became more and more aware of God in my life. Now, i don't have as good a relationship as I'd like, but i'm working towards it.

Elaborate on methods, on how you've grown closer to God. There was a thread like this, launched by Labrador, some months ago. Man, that was a good thread, a real clearing-house of ideas and theories on why people became Christian. You want testimonies? That thread was a huge testimony...and it proved something to me that I'll touch on in a minute.

Point I'm making: I know you want to be heard in these forums, I know you want to spread a positive and enlightening message. I also know you describe yourself as somewhat lazy. These are mutually exclusive things! If you want to be heard, if you want to make your mark, you really need to step up what you write. Never make a statement that is not supported by at least some level of theological research, and some anthropological/archeological/historical data wouldn't hurt either in many cases (like the unfounded claim that Noah's Ark was discovered, for example...a link to a National Geographic article would have helped you there). You want to be an intellectual poster — there's a lot of work involved in that, more than making random claims that are unfounded.


To the rest of y'all

I'm aware that things like Pascal's wager are a poor excuse for faith. Well, no, let me clarify that, shape it a bit. This is what I meant to talk about "later".

Is fear a good reason to have faith? Yes and no.

This will seem like a tangent, but let's talk about Icons. Not like the little pictures on your computer desktop, but like the religious artwork. Icons, blessed depictions of imagery from the Bible.

Icons offer a pictoral representation of events in the Bible, but there's always an "angle" to them, some meaning behind the image. One of the most famous Icons, by Gruenwald [sic?], depicts Christ on the cross. It is a gory and disgusting picture — bloody, and Christ is almost green in it. Very disturbing picture.

This Icon was hung in a hospital where most of the patients were desperately ill, and many would not be leaving outside of a pine box. The message behind this Icon was that the Lord could sympathize with the pain of the patients there, that the Lord understood what suffereing and death entailed as well as they did, and that the Lord would look with favour upon them.

There are many other Icons, and they have various meanings. But ultimately, they are just images, and only tell a specific part of the tale. They offer a glimpse, not the whole panorama.

So too with faith, and reasons for it. Pascal's Wager — fear of damnation, basically — is not a good reason for faith because it is not a full reason for faith. It can still offer a glimpse of a reason for faith, so in and of itself it is not a mistake to have faith because of it.

The mistake, as with Icons, lies in assuming that the glimpse is enough. If your only reason for faith is Pascal's Wager, that's a mistake, because your faith is paralyzed then, and cannot grow to its full potential richness. On the other hand, if you use it as a springboard to a greater faith in God, through other means and further studies, then it is a great thing.

So, to those of you who bash on people because that's what they bring to the table — ease off. I won't go so far as to say accept or condone this view in other people, but don't go out of your way to bash on it...perhaps it is more constructive, in the end, to help them learn.

To those of you who base your faith on such things, fear and Pascal, consider what has been said, and make efforts to enrich and better understand your faith.

Peace, all,
:) Aiera

Well written Aiera. I don't intend to bash on anybody, but I subscribe to the delightful Jewish philosophy that nothing that can't withstand humour is worth taking seriously.

Well written Aiera. I don't intend to bash on anybody, but I subscribe to the delightful Jewish philosophy that nothing that can't withstand humour is worth taking seriously.

I agree entirely.

:D Aiera