NationStates Jolt Archive

Aside from biblical texts, there isn't any reliable corroboration that Jesus even EXISTED... much less that he did any miracles, or was 'more than a man'.
As a matter of fact, we do have valuable refrences by the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman Tacitus. These provide a sort of outline for Jesus' life, if you will. They do mention the facts that he performed miracles and was worshipped as God, as well as his crucifixion and how the disciples believed he had risen.

In fact, the simple fact that the people who were waiting for the prophecies to be fulfilled, are STILL waiting (the Jews), implies that perhaps Jesus DID NOT fulfill them.
This argument does not hold water at all. First of all, from my experiences with the Jewish community (correct me if I am wrong) the prophesies of the the messiah are generally not discussed any more (except in perhaps the most conservative circles). Also, the fact is many Jews gave up waiting and accepted Jesus as the messiah: they are called Christians instead of Jews.

boy I feel really lonely posting on this thread. :(

boy I feel really lonely posting on this thread. :(

Why?

Most overused and least understood thing Christ ever said. "Turn the other cheek" does not and never did mean "Grin and bear it," like so many seem to think. With a little insight into the culture of the time, it is extremely evident that it is a call to passive resistance.


It's actually defiance right? In other words, you turn the other cheek to let them strike you again, because you are not going to retract what you say/do. Is that right?

(I should point out first that I am an atheist) There is nothing wrong with Christians spreading the word of Christ. What I don't like is the people who go about it the wrong way. The right way to do it is to use logic and reasoning to cinvince (not prove) an atheist that there is a flaw in their argument. An excellent example of this is 'Where was God on september 11" by John Blanchard. Also "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and "more than a carpenter" by Josh McDowell. These books have seriously made me doubt my position on religion. I suggest that any atheist that thinks his argument against God is flawless should read all of these books. If you are an atheist and have already read all of these books, and still dont believe, at least recognise the fact that Christians are happier than we are.

I just want to say, first of all, that your question (unlike some others) is legitimate. Ok, let's take a look at this, and assume that you are right. Let us assume that there is this one god who has chosen to reveal himself, not to one tribe, but to each and every tribe. We would then reasonably expect to find then some facts about this god that agree, along with "facts" that don't, but are from human error. Let us focus in on one (important) aspect of "truth" that has been revealed: how are we saved (from whatever we need to be saved from)? Well, all world religions can be put in one of two categories: Teacher Religions and Savior Religions. Teacher Religions are called so because they usually have a teacher as their founder and the salvation message is: "walk as I walk, do as I do and you will be saved." Savior Religions are called so because their founder says "you cannot do it; I must do it for you; I must save you."

If we have only one god giving the info to all the tribes of the Earth, either he is confused or there are two gods involved. Christianity states that there is one God and Savior, and that His Adversary is acting as a Deceiver. Although He initially chose to teach only one family about Himself, now it is open to all.


I would dare say that that you are both right and wrong. I would go along with putting the worlds religions in two categories, teacher and savior. But I don't agree that there are two gods or one confused one. Instead all gods are aspects of the one god, He just changed the way he gave the information to suit the his audience. Much like any public speaker takes his audience into account when writing a speach, so to does the Divine. There are many many different people on this world all with their own personalities, ways of doing things and ways of learning. I would say that we have the two types of religion to cover the bases with all of humanity because when it comes to getting people to an end result there are two. From the person giving the knowledge you have two types of people, those that you can show how to do it so that in the future they can do it for themselves and those that can't graps the concepts and all that's involved so you just have to do it for them.

I work in IT and have to answer help desk calls occasionally.They're people who I can tell how to fix their problems, my fiancee is one of these people. She can call me up at work saying the computer isn't doing something right and I tell her she needs to "do this" and the issue will be fixed. Then there's my mother who calls me up and says her computer isn't acting right and because she doesn't have the understanding, it's far less confusing for her for me to just go to her house and fix her computer for her. I think this example shows my point. The teaching religions are like my fiancee, show them how to fix their problems and they can do it themselves and even show others how to do it, while the savior religions are like my mother, fix it for her or it'll never get fixed and she'll be completely lost.

I'm not saying those that need the Savior style religions are dumb and those that following the Teacher religions are smarter, no just that they find comfort and understanding in the type of religion that they have chosen. THe reason people get upset at Christians preaching to them is because to them it would be the same as if I told my fiancee, "Move, it's not worth telling you how to fix your computer even though you could probably do it yourself if I just told you what was wrong." She would get very upset at me and I would be sleeping on the couch. The reason she got mad at me and exiled me to the couch is quite similiar to why non-christians do not like to be preached to without asking for it.

I would go so far as to say that most if not all the worlds religions have a common underlying message to them. Be good to each other, treat each other with the respect that you would want, and above all love the divine. Or atleast something along those lines.the rest of the religion is merely there to help facilitate the understanding of the core message.

(I should point out first that I am an atheist) There is nothing wrong with Christians spreading the word of Christ. What I don't like is the people who go about it the wrong way. The right way to do it is to use logic and reasoning to cinvince (not prove) an atheist that there is a flaw in their argument. An excellent example of this is 'Where was God on september 11" by John Blanchard. Also "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and "more than a carpenter" by Josh McDowell. These books have seriously made me doubt my position on religion. I suggest that any atheist that thinks his argument against God is flawless should read all of these books. If you are an atheist and have already read all of these books, and still dont believe, at least recognise the fact that Christians are happier than we are.

Considering there's nothing to suggest that Jesus was a carpenter, and that most modern theologists seem to think he was most likely a mason...

I'd get some better sources before believing in magic.

And Christians aren't nearly universally happier than I am these days. Ever felt so good that, even though you were missing the one you love, seeing another couple just filled your heart with joy that, somewhere on this planet, someone is happy?

I get that fairly regularly, despite being fully aware that we're all worm food, and that millions are dying, starving, being raped, enslaved, tortured, and so forth, and that there's no cutesy salvation thing to fix it all.

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine."

New Eire Land,

I think you missed my point in examining several historic authors.

My point was that most recorded history of the persecution of Christians, not actual events surrounding Jesus. The two are not the same, as I'm sure you know.

Christianity has its historic place, and many records show persecution of early Christians. On the other hand, Jesus has two or three authors that tried to evidence anything at all about his life.

And the fact that most were born after Christ "lived" is the reason why most are dismissable as evidence for Christ. In fact, the one separate author who could have shown anything about his life, as he was around at that time, was Seneca, and he only documented Christian persecution.

Not to mention the fact that our timescale, the way in which we measure the years passing changed at around that time. Who knows how long ago Jesus lived? A.D. stands for Anno Domini, Year of Our Lord and the Roman Empire is responsible for the change from B.C. to A.D.. The Roman Empire didn't officially or unofficially become a Christian empire until around "300 A.D." whatever that means. Of course, maybe you know more about this than I.

No one is going to come to your house and force you to be Christian

2 Words:

Jehovas Witnesses

They go door to door, and worst of all they don't take no for an answer. They came to my Grandmothers house, tryed to force their way in, and if my Grandmother didn't have her walking stick to beat them away from the door, something bad may have happened. Religion is a negativity on modern society, why should I waste my Sundays in a crappy church, when I can be doing something useful.

As for time, the Calendars changed several times, and mistranslations within the bible itself don't give the right time-frame. Plus there is the matter of the determined age of the planet, 4.6 billion years, now I may be wrong, but thats a long way from the 7-10 000 the bible claims.

No Jehovas where I live. Good and bad. Good = no crazy religious fanatics trying to convert me. Bad = no religious fanatics to make fun of when they come to the door trying to convert me. (I'm 14 so I can do this without being called immature because I'm a kid :p )

As a matter of fact, we do have valuable refrences by the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman Tacitus. These provide a sort of outline for Jesus' life, if you will. They do mention the facts that he performed miracles and was worshipped as God, as well as his crucifixion and how the disciples believed he had risen.

No - we have references, but their 'value' is questionable, to say the least.

First: Josephus wasn't even BORN until after Jesus is alleged to have died. SO he CANNOT have been a witness to anything he writes about him.

Second: The text "Ioudaike Archaiologia" wasn't even written until more than half a century after the Crucifixion. Thus - the document is neither reliable (he wasn't there), nor contemporary (it wasn't at the same time).

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that Josephus was not a contemporary source... (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm)

Further to even THESE details, however - the passage describing 'Jesus' does not actually fit in with the rest of the text around it, and is commonly considered to have been edited in at a much later date.

Thus - the Josephus reference is unreliable, not contemporary, and most likely forged.

Add to this, the fact that Josephus was a traitor to the Jews, and a 'lapdog' to the Roman oppresors (his life was spared by Vespasian because he made 'prophecies' about Vespasian's future greatness, he was a 'pet' of several consecutive Emperors, and was given Holy Land territory stolen from the original dwellers). He was also, of course, sustained in his 'work' by a pension from his Roman 'friends'... which calls into question his objectivity.

Tacitus is even LESS reliable, since his 'Annals' wasn't even written until ANOTHER 50 years later, and is allegedly based on Roman histories... yet makes fundamental errors, if this is the case... for example - describing Pontius Pilate as a 'procurator' - where he SHOULD have been described as 'Prefect'.

The other argument against him is that even Josephus refered to 'Jesus', yet Tactitus refers to 'Christus'... which doesn't fit with Roman 'form'.... or with the contemporary Christian documents.

In fact, the ONLY part of Tacitus statement that IS NOT immediately open to question, is that Nero punished Christians... which is independently documented.

However, 'punishing Christians' is not an indicator of the validity of the claim that Jesus is Messiah.

This argument does not hold water at all. First of all, from my experiences with the Jewish community (correct me if I am wrong) the prophesies of the the messiah are generally not discussed any more (except in perhaps the most conservative circles). Also, the fact is many Jews gave up waiting and accepted Jesus as the messiah: they are called Christians instead of Jews.

I'm not sure what you mean... what is a 'conservative' Jew?

By your definition... it seems it would be one that still awaits Messiah...

I don't know about the Jewish community as a whole... since I have never met EVERY Jew... but MOST seem to still be waiting for Messiah.. and have good reasons to believe that Jesus was NOT Messiah.

You are correct -some Jews HAVE accepted Jesus as Messiah... and some of these are called Christians.

For the most part though, Jews do not beleive Jesus was Messiah - because, quite simply, they do not believe that he has fulfilled the requirements.

Example:
"What then is this Messiah for whom we wait? The Messiah will be a mortal man, born of a normal man and woman. He will be of the undisputed scion of David through his father. He will become uncontested ruler in the Land of Israel over all the People of Israel, that is, all Twelve Tribes of Israel. He will have at least one son, who will be king after the Messiah dies a normal death at an advanced age."

http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/whynotbrief.html

the problem is with the idea that the only way to be good is to be your certain branch of christianity and SOME people dont like such closed mindedness. some people accept other people's beliefs as being as valid as their own because that person believes it and that makes it valid.

No - we have references, but their 'value' is questionable, to say the least.

First: Josephus wasn't even BORN until after Jesus is alleged to have died. SO he CANNOT have been a witness to anything he writes about him.
Yes, but this is still within the life of eyewitnesses who were there. Even if there were no eyewitnesses, 50 years is not nearly long enough for legendary material to evolve. Take, for instance, the biographies of Alexander the Great. They earliest were finished four hundered years after his death in 323. Legendary material only started to emerge in the 500 years after them. 50 measly years is like a non-issue.

Further to even THESE details, however - the passage describing 'Jesus' does not actually fit in with the rest of the text around it, and is commonly considered to have been edited in at a much later date.
The main consensus among historians is that while there have been 'interpolations' by later editors, much of the text was written by Josephus.

For instance, take this excerpt. Interpolations have been bolded by me because they do not fit with what Josephus has said elsewhere.

"About this time, there lived a man name Jesus, if one ought to indeed call him a man. For he was one who wrought suprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life..."

Add to this, the fact that Josephus was a traitor to the Jews, and a 'lapdog' to the Roman oppresors (his life was spared by Vespasian because he made 'prophecies' about Vespasian's future greatness, he was a 'pet' of several consecutive Emperors, and was given Holy Land territory stolen from the original dwellers). He was also, of course, sustained in his 'work' by a pension from his Roman 'friends'... which calls into question his objectivity.
Although Josephus was a traitor, this does not influence his objectivity in writing about Jesus. Note that the persecution of Christians did not cease until the reign of Constantine in the 300's.

Tacitus is even LESS reliable, since his 'Annals' wasn't even written until ANOTHER 50 years later, and is allegedly based on Roman histories... yet makes fundamental errors, if this is the case... for example - describing Pontius Pilate as a 'procurator' - where he SHOULD have been described as 'Prefect'.
My suspicion is that this is a misinterpretation, but even if it isn't, this hardly counts as a 'fundamental' error. Maybe if there was a fundamental error actually concerning the existence of Jesus or his alleged miracles I would take more time to investigate this...

However, 'punishing Christians' is not an indicator of the validity of the claim that Jesus is Messiah.
The fact that Christians refused to recant their beliefs when they have a good reason to do so is useful in that these eyewitnesses who saw what had happened truly believed in Jesus.

You are correct some Jews HAVE accepted Jesus as Messiah... and some of these are called Christians.
Thus undermining your assertion that the existence of Jews disproves the divinity of Jesus.

the problem is with the idea that the only way to be good is to be your certain branch of christianity and SOME people dont like such closed mindedness. some people accept other people's beliefs as being as valid as their own because that person believes it and that makes it valid.
Truth by nature excludes lies. Just because someone believes something does not make it valid. I could believe with all my heart and soul that 5 + 9 = 24, but that does not make it true. Also, everyone is closed minded to some extent. You, for example, do not accept my belief that Christianity is the only way to heaven. Atheists exclude all theistic beliefs. Society today is caught up in 'accepting' other people and not offending anyone. I am not saying that you can't believe what you like, just that this 'all-accepting'/'everyone wins' mentality is bunk. This is probably advocated by the same people who want to remove the competition from young kids' sports, but I'll stay off of that topic today.

You are correct some Jews HAVE accepted Jesus as Messiah... and some of these are called Christians.

Thus undermining your assertion that the existence of Jews disproves the divinity of Jesus.

Wrong. Many more Jews are not Christians than are.

The fact that many people believe in something, or that some choose to believe in something does not make that something true. Case in point: The Moslem populous believe that Mohommad was a prophet. Christian's believe this to be false. If this is false, but many people believe it to be true, it cannot be true.

My point is this, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Truth by nature excludes lies. Just because someone believes something does not make it valid. I could believe with all my heart and soul that 5 + 9 = 24, but that does not make it true. Also, everyone is closed minded to some extent. You, for example, do not accept my belief that Christianity is the only way to heaven. Atheists exclude all theistic beliefs. Society today is caught up in 'accepting' other people and not offending anyone. I am not saying that you can't believe what you like, just that this 'all-accepting'/'everyone wins' mentality is bunk. This is probably advocated by the same people who want to remove the competition from young kids' sports, but I'll stay off of that topic today.

Now you make no sense at all. The truth of an assertion cannot be ascertained by appealing to the number of people believing in said assertion. You state this, and say that truth excludes lies. This may be correct, but truth is an ideal that may be unattainable, so the search for truth may not have a conclusion.

Being close-minded is an aspect of being human. We all wish to believe that we (our beliefs) are correct, and we may very well be, but it's impossible to tell. So either we accept our histories as they are written, or take the knowledge we have of our past and combine it to gain the most logical solution.

We know that prior to Constantine, the Roman Empire was not a Christian empire. All documents commissioned prior to this probably sought to disprove Jesus in an attempt to save face for the Empire, but after this, history could have been changed in order to make it sound more believable and to retain the Empire's stranglehold on Europe.

The fact that many people believe in something, or that some choose to believe in something does not make that something true. Case in point: The Moslem populous believe that Mohommad was a prophet. Christian's believe this to be false. If this is false, but many people believe it to be true, it cannot be true.

My point is this, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Exactly my point, sorry if you misunderstood me.

Now you make no sense at all. The truth of an assertion cannot be ascertained by appealing to the number of people believing in said assertion.
Where did I ever state this? I am saying the same thing you are here:
Thus undermining your assertion that the existence of Jews disproves the divinity of Jesus.What I neglected to say was that it also undermines the assertion that the existence of Christians proves the divinity of Jesus.

Ah... religion... one phrase to end them all:

To each, his own!

Being close-minded is an aspect of being human. We all wish to believe that we (our beliefs) are correct, and we may very well be, but it's impossible to tell.Also true, but that also means that in the end, some people will be vindicated and others not. All we can do is look at the evidence and take our best shot at picking what is true and what is not.

Yes, but this is still within the life of eyewitnesses who were there. Even if there were no eyewitnesses, 50 years is not nearly long enough for legendary material to evolve. Take, for instance, the biographies of Alexander the Great. They earliest were finished four hundered years after his death in 323. Legendary material only started to emerge in the 500 years after them. 50 measly years is like a non-issue.


Obviously, you KNOW this to be untrue. 'Legendary' material was surfacing about Hitler in the 1970's... a mere 25 years after the end of the war.

And Hitler didn't even live in a 'time of prophets'. When you ALREADY have huge quantities of legendary material (hundreds of years of false messiahs), it takes very little to attac h such material t a new figure.

But, on your other point - it is very unlikely that ANY eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus were consulted for Josephus text. Bear in mind, to have been an adult at the Crucifixion would mean to be something like 80-90 years old when Josephus wrote his text. It isn't THAT likely any eye witness could even have been still alive - especially in so turbulent an area.


The main consensus among historians is that while there have been 'interpolations' by later editors, much of the text was written by Josephus.

For instance, take this excerpt. Interpolations have been bolded by me because they do not fit with what Josephus has said elsewhere.

"About this time, there lived a man name Jesus, if one ought to indeed call him a man. For he was one who wrought suprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life..."


It seems likely that the whole passage was added, since it doesn't fit with the text either side of it especially well. But, even if the interpolations were just as you state - it still merely names a 'Jesus' (corruption of the real name, obviously)... a VERY common name in that time and place.

And this 'Jesus' has no miraculous tales attached.

It is pretty certain that 'Josephus' was the genuine author of most of his alleged works... but the Jesus passage is not beyond question... and certainly FITS with a later-edition conclusion.


Although Josephus was a traitor, this does not influence his objectivity in writing about Jesus. Note that the persecution of Christians did not cease until the reign of Constantine in the 300's.


Actually - the fact that he was a very priviliged 'consort' of the regime DOES influence his objectivity. He was being paid for his work. It is unlikely that that had NO effect on what he wrote.


My suspicion is that this is a misinterpretation, but even if it isn't, this hardly counts as a 'fundamental' error. Maybe if there was a fundamental error actually concerning the existence of Jesus or his alleged miracles I would take more time to investigate this...


You think Tacitus misinterpreted Pilate's function? It seems unlikely - if, as has been supposed, he was actually drawing from historical sources. bear in mind - he is most of a century too young to have been a witness.

On the other hand, if he was writing from hearsay and gossip... it is not unlikely that he might end up using the 'wrong' name for Jesus, and the 'wrong' title for Pilate.

The issue then being: his is purely recounting an urban myth. His source is 'reliable' ONLY in that it mentions Christians... which can be corroborated.

Most likely, any OTHER text comes from the collected folktales of the Christians.


The fact that Christians refused to recant their beliefs when they have a good reason to do so is useful in that these eyewitnesses who saw what had happened truly believed in Jesus.

Which eyewitnesses?

There is no objective evidence that there WERE any eyewitnesses. We still have no corroboratable proof that the Biblical 'Jesus' ever even lived.

Thus undermining your assertion that the existence of Jews disproves the divinity of Jesus.

Not at all... what a strange conclusion to reach.

Some Jews have lost their faith, and turned their back on the obvious truth.

Many more Jews have stayed true, and have never sold their belief.

The fact that Jews predicted messiah is not altered by the subversion of SOME Jews.

The fact that the same group that PREDICTED messiah is STILL waiting, is not altered by the subversion of SOME Jews.

Obviously, you KNOW this to be untrue. 'Legendary' material was surfacing about Hitler in the 1970's... a mere 25 years after the end of the war.

And Hitler didn't even live in a 'time of prophets'. When you ALREADY have huge quantities of legendary material (hundreds of years of false messiahs), it takes very little to attac h such material t a new figure.
What legendary material? Excuse my ignorance of the subject, but I am not real familiar with 'legendary' Hitler material.

Not at all... what a strange conclusion to reach.I would say the same to your conclusion.

Some Jews have lost their faith, and turned their back on the obvious truth.

Many more Jews have stayed true, and have never sold their belief.

The fact that Jews predicted messiah is not altered by the subversion of SOME Jews.

The fact that the same group that PREDICTED messiah is STILL waiting, is not altered by the subversion of SOME Jews.
The fact that Judaism still exists can neither prove nor disprove Christianity, as well as vice versa. Because some Jews refused to give up their old traditions does not imply that they are correct in their beliefs.

What legendary material? Excuse my ignorance of the subject, but I am not real familiar with 'legendary' Hitler material.

You are unaware of stories that surfaced of sightings, after the death of Hitler?

The arguments about documentary evidence? (Hitler Diaries).

The stories about Hitler dabbling in the occult? Trying to recruit 'Gremlins' during World War 2?

Maybe he hasn't been accused of turning wine to water... but the 'legends' about Hitler have been circulating almost since the war.

Why hasn't Neo Cannen been permebanned?

And um, Jews for Jesus aren't Jews... in case you needed someone to tell you the obvious.

You are unaware of stories that surfaced of sightings, after the death of Hitler?

The arguments about documentary evidence? (Hitler Diaries).

The stories about Hitler dabbling in the occult? Trying to recruit 'Gremlins' during World War 2?

Maybe he hasn't been accused of turning wine to water... but the 'legends' about Hitler have been circulating almost since the war.I'm assuming that these circulated in the US ... to be a better parallel, they would have to be in Germany where eyewitnesses and descendents of eyewitnesses existed to speak out against the 'legendary' material.

And um, Jews for Jesus aren't Jews... in case you needed someone to tell you the obvious.Gee... thanks for enlightening me! :)

I would say the same to your conclusion.

The fact that Judaism still exists can neither prove nor disprove Christianity, as well as vice versa. Because some Jews refused to give up their old traditions does not imply that they are correct in their beliefs.

Well - let's look at why we were discussing this:

"Jesus was obviously more than a man becuase he was able to bring about the largest religion in the world... Also, doesn't his miracles and prophecies of raising up his body after three days mean anything?'

My response included:

"Also, I'm afraid, prophecy isn't really worth anything.... There were prophecies of Messiah, and New Testament stories CLAIM that Jesus fulfilled many of them. But, there is no independent evidence to support such claims.... In fact, the simple fact that the people who were waiting for the prophecies to be fulfilled, are STILL waiting... implies that perhaps Jesus DID NOT fulfill them".

Then, let us look at part of the source I provided:

"What then is this Messiah for whom we wait? The Messiah will be a mortal man, born of a normal man and woman. He will be of the undisputed scion of David through his father. He will become uncontested ruler in the Land of Israel over all the People of Israel, that is, all Twelve Tribes of Israel. He will have at least one son, who will be king after the Messiah dies a normal death at an advanced age."

Now - putting it all together... in the absence of CORROBORATION to the contrary... there is no reason to suspect that a man called 'Jesus' DID fulfill the requirements of Messiah.

And - if he didn't... then Christianity is fatally flawed, because Jesus is NOT the Messiah.

And also - given that Jewish teaching says that Messiah would be someone who fulfilled DIFFERENT requirements to those that Christianity argues... and it is THAT VERY assumption of meeting that qualification that would make Jesus a valid Messiah... then Christianity is fatally flawed, because Jesus STILL is NOT the Messiah.

And - even if Jesus was being compared to the RIGHT requirements... he STILL failed to meet them... so, Christianity is STILL fatally flawed, because Jesus is NOT messiah.


I'm afraid that, whichever way you look at it, the fact that Jesus does not match the requirements set down in Jewsih prophecy DOES disprove Christianity.

And the only evidence that MIGHT be able to help Christianity (that being, independent corroboration of Jesus' messianic qualities, IN SPITE of Jewish prophecy) does not exist.

I'm assuming that these circulated in the US ... to be a better parallel, they would have to be in Germany where eyewitnesses and descendents of eyewitnesses existed to speak out against the 'legendary' material.

You assumed that... why?

I lived in Europe, and that is where I first heard such tales.

There could, of course, be similar statments made about the US... such as Kennedy's love affair with Marylin Monroe... or her liason with Einstein... or how 'the FBI had him killed'....

The point is made, however... there is no 'minimum' required period for 'legendary' material to become entangled with a personality.

Gee... thanks for enlightening me! :)

Hey... you never know.

I must be going now, but I will be back later...
And no, for you cynical people, I am not leaving because I have run out of arguments... but who am I to tell you what to believe?

Anyway, Grave_n_Idle, thanks for your time. It has been an enlightening time. :)

I must be going now, but I will be back later...
And no, for you cynical people, I am not leaving because I have run out of arguments... but who am I to tell you what to believe?

Anyway, Grave_n_Idle, thanks for your time. It has been an enlightening time. :)

I also have reached the end of my online oppurtunity for a while... perhaps I shall be back to cross swords at some later installment. :)

im a christian too, how is it wrong to help people? if it were compulsutory it would be awful, i guess. well alls well that ends well. but not really. :confused: ;) :confused: :cool: :headbang: :)

Truth by nature excludes lies.

Step 1:Point out the false dichotomy.

It's actually defiance right? In other words, you turn the other cheek to let them strike you again, because you are not going to retract what you say/do. Is that right?

No.

By turning the other cheek, you make it pretty much impossible for them to hit you at all. However, since you are not being violent, you have done nothing that would bring you punishment.

In the society of the time, use of the left hand for pretty much anything but using it as the "bathroom hand" was forbidden. You could not gesture or touch another with your left hand without facing punishment. On top of that, backhanding was the only way you could strike a slave (or woman). If you punched them or slapped them in a forward direction, that automatically placed them on the level with you - giving them the right to strike back without fear of reprisal. Thus, a slave-owner or a man who wanted to hit his wife, etc. could only back hand them. If someone backhands you, and you "turn the other cheek", they cannot backhand you again. They cannot strike you by slapping or punching you without admitting you are in their class. Thus, they cannot hit you again.

In that same sermon, we have two other examples. In one, Christ tells us that if someone takes us to court and sues us for our outer garment, we should give him our inner garment as well. This also needs interpretation within the society at the time. If you had no money, but owed someone, they could sue for your outer garments - something that Christ would likely not have agreed with. However, one must also understand that seeing nudity brought shame to the one who saw it, not the person who was nude. Thus, if you gave your inner garment as well as your outer, you would shame the man who had sued you, as well as the entire courtroom.

The other example is the one in which Christ tells us that if a soldier makes us carry his pack a mile, we should carry it two. Roman soldiers were allowed, by law, to stop any man and tell him to carry their pack, but only for a mile. Having someone carry it longer put a soldier in a position to be punished. Thus, if a man were to carry the pack for 2 miles, the soldier could get in big trouble (and probably wouldn't be asking anyone else to carry it for him again).

im a christian too, how is it wrong to help people? if it were compulsutory it would be awful, i guess. well alls well that ends well. but not really. :confused: ;) :confused: :cool: :headbang: :)
If someone has chosen not to be "saved", then you should leave them alone.

Maybe you should do spell check before you post, so you don't sound like an idiot. Checking grammar, punctuation and other stuff like that might help as well.








Everything.

By the way, you don't get 'converted' to atheism like it's a religion. You just ARE atheist.
Atheism is a religion.

Maybe you should do spell check before you post, so you don't sound like an idiot. Checking grammar, punctuation and other stuff like that might help as well.








Everything.
Might I ask who it is your bitching is directed at?

I'd say that if I go to hell because i didn't believe in god, then the god has made a mistake by creating so lame preachers that they were unable to convince me about his existence, what makes him something else than a god as he makes mistakes. If I don't go to hell, it proves that it doesn't count whether you believe or not, and makes you all look like an idiot :D .
Or then that there is no hell at all=bible is fake=there is no god at all. In any case, you believers are wrong. This cannot be proved though, at least not until I die, but hey, when that happens I will die knowing that I was right about everything.

Might I ask who it is your bitching is directed at?




Neo Cannen, the person who started this thread.

Neo Cannen, the person who started this thread.
Just wanted to make sure, as my post was the last before yours.

Just wanted to make sure, as my post was the last before yours.



No problem.

Atheism is a religion.

No, it isn't.

It is the lack of belief in any god/gods... or it is the active disbelief in god/gods.

It is, if anything, a LACK of religion.

Atheism is a religion.
Bollocks. Religion = there is a god better than any of them, and we all worship it, somehow. With in churches/some kind of sacred places and priests of some type. Atheist doesn't do that shit, so atheism is not a religion.

No, it isn't.

It is the lack of belief in any god/gods... or it is the active disbelief in god/gods.

It is, if anything, a LACK of religion.
That is precisely what I was gonna say, only you worded it better.

Atheism is a religion.

no it's not. Have a look round the web, www.wiki.org is a good place to start.

Bollocks. Religion = there is a god better than any of them, and we all worship it, somehow. With in churches/some kind of sacred places and priests of some type. Atheist doesn't do that shit, so atheism is not a religion.

Neither a belief that one god is "better than any of them" nor a church or priest is necessary for religion.

Care to try again?

Isn't any Jesus-fool going to get upset of my as provocative-as-possible-posts? :confused:

Neither a belief that one god is "better than any of them" nor a church or priest is necessary for religion.

Care to try again?

A place for the religion without any other use. Give me an example of a world-religion that doesn't have this.

Someone who has specialized in telling about the religion. Give me an example of a world-religion that doesn't have this.

Strong belief that their religion is the right one. Most of the world-religions have this, don't they?

Atheism is a religion.


Yeah. Uh-huh. That makes about as much sense as "Depression causes cancer."

A place for the religion without any other use. Give me an example of a world-religion that doesn't have this.

Someone who has specialized in telling about the religion. Give me an example of a world-religion that doesn't have this.

Strong belief that their religion is the right one. Most of the world-religions have this, don't they?

One does not need a "world-religion" to be religious, nor do they have to believe in someone else's version (aka a priest) of that world-religion.

There are many Christians who do not go to church or defer to a priest. We can pray in our bedrooms, in our cars, wherever. We can be close to God wherever we are.

Edit: And a strong belief that your religion is right does not equate to a strong belief that any other relgion is wrong.

no it's not. Have a look round the web, www.wiki.org is a good place to start.
Yes it is, and because of the nature of Wiki, I do not trust it as a source of valid information unless I have 3 or 4 sources with the same information to back it up.

A place for the religion without any other use. Give me an example of a world-religion that doesn't have this.

Someone who has specialized in telling about the religion. Give me an example of a world-religion that doesn't have this.


Wiccans do not need specific places of worship, and often do 'their thing' in nature spots... which (obviously) have other 'uses'.

Baha'i have no priests.

Yeah. Uh-huh. That makes about as much sense as "Depression causes cancer."
:huhu:

Yes it is, and because of the nature of Wiki, I do not trust it as a source of valid information unless I have 3 or 4 sources with the same information to back it up.

no, it is not.

The word 'atheism' is from the greek 'a' - without, 'theos' - god

without god.

Being without god is not the same as being part of a religion

Small correction, Atheism is not the same as christianity, but can be still considered a religion.

Small correction, Atheism is not the same as christianity, but can be still considered a religion.

no, it cannot.

religion

• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship.

Atheism has no system or worship or arganisation.
Atheism is in the same bracket as theism, and theism is not a religion, it is a belief.

no, it is not.

The word 'atheism' is from the greek 'a' - without, 'theos' - god

without god.

Being without god is not the same as being part of a religion
If you have a big enough ego to believe that nowhere in the infinite universe there is no god of some kind then you have the same belief as muslim or christian, who all believe there is no other god then theirs. also note my correction, I sometimes speak before I think.

If you have a big enough ego to believe that nowhere in the infinite universe there is no god of some kind then you have the same belief as muslim or christian, who all believe there is no other god then theirs. also note my correction, I sometimes speak before I think.

it is a belief, but it is not a religion.

a dictionary will help you make such distinctions

no, it cannot.

religion

• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship.

Atheism has no system or worship or arganisation.
Atheism is in the same bracket as theism, and theism is not a religion, it is a belief.
For one you do not need to worship or be organized to be in a religion, and as previously stated I sometimes shoot from the hip, and appologize for my statement on atheism being a religion, but I will stand by my point that Atheism has some qualities of religion.

One does not need a "world-religion" to be religious, nor do they have to believe in someone else's version (aka a priest) of that world-religion.

There are many Christians who do not go to church or defer to a priest. We can pray in our bedrooms, in our cars, wherever. We can be close to God wherever we are.

Edit: And a strong belief that your religion is right does not equate to a strong belief that any other relgion is wrong.


About the word world-religion, which is incorrect (I apologize my limited english) I meant it only as answer to ElectronX who claimed that Atheism is a religion. I described the most common way of religion, and those "rules" that are shared by all of them, = sacred places and priests of some kind. Immediately after my answer I realized that better way to tell my point would have been jsut to say that Atheism means the opposite of religion, without describing those methods of it.

PS.Actually, believeing what bible says pretty much excludes the possibility of Thor and Odin, doesn't it?

For one you do not need to worship or be organized to be in a religion, and as previously stated I sometimes shoot from the hip, and appologize for my statement on atheism being a religion, but I will stand by my point that Atheism has some qualities of religion.

I suggest if you do not wish to appear ignorant and immature that you take your own advice and think more carefully before you post.

Atheism has only one component - being without god. If you consider this similar to religions, then fine.

There are, however, no other similarities.

If you have a big enough ego to believe that nowhere in the infinite universe there is no god of some kind then you have the same belief as muslim or christian, who all believe there is no other god then theirs. also note my correction, I sometimes speak before I think.

That is not what an Atheist is... If you think about it, all religions exhibit a form of Atheism in addition to their religion... since they disbelieve ALL the other religions.

You are also confusing two types of Atheism. A large proportion of the Atheist community would not fit your description.

I am an Implicit Atheist. I do not believe in any gods... but that doesn't equate to saying "there IS NO god".

it is a belief, but it is not a religion.

a dictionary will help you make such distinctions

In fact, Implicit Atheism isn't even a belief.... just a LACK of belief.

That is not what an Atheist is... If you think about it, all religions exhibit a form of Atheism in addition to their religion... since they disbelieve ALL the other religions.

You are also confusing two types of Atheism. A large proportion of the Atheist community would not fit your description.

I am an Implicit Atheist. I do not believe in any gods... but that doesn't equate to saying "there IS NO god".
I think your definition is that of an Agnostic.

In fact, Implicit Atheism isn't even a belief.... just a LACK of belief.

yes, indeed.

I think your definition is that of an Agnostic.

again you are wrong. Please use your dictionary, it will help you avoid looking foolish

I suggest if you do not wish to appear ignorant and immature that you take your own advice and think more carefully before you post.

Atheism has only one component - being without god. If you consider this similar to religions, then fine.

There are, however, no other similarities.
Since science cannot prove or disprove the existence of any god, then do you not rely on faith when you believe that there is no god(s)? Faith being a component of religion? AKA a similarity?

Isn't agnostic a person who doesn't know if there is a god and atheist a person who thinks there is no god? I have always thought so, please tell me im right on this or I have to do some serious
:headbang:

again you are wrong. Please use your dictionary, it will help you avoid looking foolish
Notice the words I use, I think, AKA, I am pretty sure but not completely?

I think your definition is that of an Agnostic.

Not at all, an Agnostic is someone who believes it is impossible to know for sure, whether there is a god.

Thus - you could be a Christian Agnostic... or an Agnostic Atheist... or any other denomination or belief structure.

A-gnostic literally means "without knowing".

Isn't agnostic a person who doesn't know if there is a god and atheist a person who thinks there is no god? I have always thought so, please tell me im right on this or I have to do some serious
:headbang:
a person who believes that, at our present level of knowledge, we cannot know whether or not a God exists. Some Agnostics believe that we can never know whether a deity exists. - Agnostic

What is wrong with Christian evangilism/prolythising?

The Bible strictly prohibits "evangilism/prolythising". For Lo, It is a sin to vex his children whilst in their abodes or tilling the earth.

Isn't agnostic a person who doesn't know if there is a god and atheist a person who thinks there is no god? I have always thought so, please tell me im right on this or I have to do some serious
:headbang:

no.

agnostic means you believe it is impossible to know if god exists or not.

implicit atheist does not believe in any gods

explicit atheist believes there are no gods

Notice the words I use, I think, AKA, I am pretty sure but not completely?

and if you use your dictionary you will avoid such errors.

Not at all, an Agnostic is someone who believes it is impossible to know for sure, whether there is a god.

Thus - you could be a Christian Agnostic... or an Agnostic Atheist... or any other denomination or belief structure.

A-gnostic literally means "without knowing".

PHEW! Thank you m8, I feel great relief :rolleyes:

Not at all, an Agnostic is someone who believes it is impossible to know for sure, whether there is a god.

Thus - you could be a Christian Agnostic... or an Agnostic Atheist... or any other denomination or belief structure.

A-gnostic literally means "without knowing".

So what does that make an Atheist?

and if you use your dictionary you will avoid such errors.
Maybe I was asking him? and not you? Oh the possibilities.

Isn't agnostic a person who doesn't know if there is a god and atheist a person who thinks there is no god? I have always thought so, please tell me im right on this or I have to do some serious
:headbang:

You should look at the definitions I have posted... they are rough, but accurate.

An Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god... divided into two possible camps:

The Explicit Atheist: Believes there IS NO god.

The Implicit Atheist: Simply doesn't believe in any gods... they are not saying there could be no gods.


An Agnostic is an individual who believes it impossible to know for sure if there is a god.... this doesn't stop them believing or not believing... Agnosticism is JUST about evidence.

again you are wrong. Please use your dictionary, it will help you avoid looking foolish

A dictionary definition isn't necessarily the same as a philosophical definition: a dictionary will tell you how a word is commonly used, but not always how it's used in its technical sense.

Agnosticism can be an epistemological position more than it is a theological one. Essentially, there's four main kinds of agnosticism: a) people who simply haven't put much thought into theological matters, b) people who have put thought into theological matters, and see a rough parity in quality of theist and atheist arguments, c) atheists who want a fallback-point if they get proved wrong, and d) people who don't believe the theist is necessarily wrong, but that the theist does not have a good, rational reason to believe what he does.

I believe ElectronX was referring to the last kind.

no.

agnostic means you believe it is impossible to know if god exists or not.

implicit atheist does not believe in any gods

explicit atheist believes there are no gods

Isn't that exactly what i said, with less words though?
So what is the "no" doing in there? :confused: :confused:

So what does that make an Atheist?

Are you being serious?

Check my prior post.

Are you being serious?

Check my prior post.
I think you made that post after I made that one.

I'm a Christian, but I really hate idiots that force my religion on people asking for controversy and being flamed. Quit your bitching and witness in the right way if you are going to do it, not a fucking Jehovah's witness type of tone.

I think you made that post after I made that one.

I did, you are correct... but I had already dealt with Atheist and Agnostic within the thread...

Anyway - it wasn't supposed to sound so 'snappy'. Apologies.

Here's a link to a pretty good site for defining Atheism and Agnosticism:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smith.htm

Isn't that exactly what i said, with less words though?
So what is the "no" doing in there? :confused: :confused:

the 'no' is there because there are some important differences between what you said and what the actual meanings are.

Hence the two types of atheist.

I'd say that if I go to hell because i didn't believe in god, then the god has made a mistake by creating so lame preachers that they were unable to convince me about his existence, what makes him something else than a god as he makes mistakes. If I don't go to hell, it proves that it doesn't count whether you believe or not, and makes you all bible-people look like an idiot.
Or then that there is no hell at all=bible is fake=there is no god at all. In any case, you believers are wrong. This cannot be proved though, at least not until I die, but hey, when that happens I will die knowing that I was right about everything.

If this gets ignored, I persume everybody agrees.

the 'no' is there because there are some important differences between what you said and what the actual meanings are.

Hence the two types of atheist.

Yea, ure right. I had the simplified (if that's a word...) version, but I think I was mostly correct on that. Thank you for clearing it out :) .

PS.Actually, believeing what bible says pretty much excludes the possibility of Thor and Odin, doesn't it?

Not really. Thor and Odin could have been another manifestation of God. They could have been the way that the Norse saw the same God. They could be aspects of God. They could be other beings that are not God.

There are all sorts of possibilities, and no need to completely rule one out.

I did, you are correct... but I had already dealt with Atheist and Agnostic within the thread...

Anyway - it wasn't supposed to sound so 'snappy'. Apologies.

Here's a link to a pretty good site for defining Atheism and Agnosticism:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smith.htm
Before I go reading anything(grounded from the computer, or so my dad says ;) ) I would like to ask, if you simply do not believe in a diety of any kind... Why? Why believe that way? (if the answer is in the link then I appologize)

I'd say that if I go to hell because i didn't believe in god,

And if hell is nothing more than the absence of the God which you chose not to believe in?

i dont believe in god but i dont see the harm in it. no matter how hard someone tried i never believe in god/christ.but as i said theres no harm in it. it just becomes very anoying when peole go on and on about it. :rolleyes:

Not really. Thor and Odin could have been another manifestation of God. They could have been the way that the Norse saw the same God. They could be aspects of God. They could be other beings that are not God.

There are all sorts of possibilities, and no need to completely rule one out.

There is a man who believs that Odin created the world and that Aasa's lived in Valhalla, a place in where dead warriors came to have wild sex and drink their brains out.

Then there is a man who believes that Jesus was the son of a Nameless God, who created the world in 7 days and that all people go to heaven or to hell.

Now it cannot be that the second man believes the bible-thing WITHOUT denying the first man's way of thinking, if he seriously thinks he is right.
Or atleast this is the way I see it.

There is a man who believs that Odin created the world and that Aasa's lived in Valhalla, a place in where dead warriors came to have wild sex and drink their brains out.

Then there is a man who believes that Jesus was the son of a Nameless God, who created the world in 7 days and that all people go to heaven or to hell.

Now it cannot be that the second man believes the bible-thing WITHOUT denying the first man's way of thinking, if he seriously thinks he is right.
Or atleast this is the way I see it.

In the limited examples which you have brought up, one can only believe on or the other.

That does not preclude those with a less limited viewpoint from seeing that there is truth of a sorts in all religion, and in attempting to seek it out.

And if hell is nothing more than the absence of the God which you chose not to believe in?

Absence="lack of", right?

I thought hell is the place where mean daemons are eating ure legs wghile you push a rock up on top of the hill only to see it coming down as soon as you have get it in there or something... regardles, i don't see how that affects in the rest of my story.

Absence="lack of", right?

I thought hell is the place where mean daemons are eating ure legs wghile you push a rock up on top of the hill only to see it coming down as soon as you have get it in there or something... regardles, i don't see how that affects in the rest of my story.

In Scripture, hell is simply the absence of God. Separation from God. Obviously, to those that love God, such a separation could be compared to being on fire, etc. To an atheist, would it really be a "punishment"?

"PS.Actually, believeing what bible says pretty much excludes the possibility of Thor and Odin, doesn't it?"

By saying that I meant someone who believes what bible says. Not more than that. Of course other kind of people, but I didn't talk about them, did I?

In Scripture, hell is simply the absence of God. Separation from God. Obviously, to those that love God, such a separation could be compared to being on fire, etc. To an atheist, would it really be a "punishment"?

That doesn't matter on this case. I talked about hell and heaven, meaning 2 places: unconfortable place and a comfortable place. Place that everybody are willing to go and place that no one want's to go.

That doesn't matter on this case. I talked about hell and heaven, meaning 2 places: unconfortable place and a comfortable place. Place that everybody are willing to go and place that no one want's to go.

So everyone else has to have a discussion based on your own personal definitions of heaven and hell?

"PS.Actually, believeing what bible says pretty much excludes the possibility of Thor and Odin, doesn't it?"

By saying that I meant someone who believes what bible says. Not more than that. Of course other kind of people, but I didn't talk about them, did I?

Strawman. There is no one out there who believes nothing at all other than what the Bible explicitly says.

That doesn't matter on this case. I talked about hell and heaven, meaning 2 places: unconfortable place and a comfortable place. Place that everybody are willing to go and place that no one want's to go.
Well, that's a black and white view. I think I would enjoy hell. All the baddies would be there. :fluffle:

That doesn't matter on this case. I talked about hell and heaven, meaning 2 places: unconfortable place and a comfortable place. Place that everybody are willing to go and place that no one want's to go.

So you're being good to escape hell then? Which is selfish, and doesn't involve accepting God's love, so you'd go to hellanyway. Hellis just a scare tactic.

Before I go reading anything(grounded from the computer, or so my dad says ;) ) I would like to ask, if you simply do not believe in a diety of any kind... Why? Why believe that way? (if the answer is in the link then I appologize)

My personal belief? Or a sort of generic reason why?

My personal arrival at Implicit Atheism was the end of a long journey of spiritual exploration... I was raised loosely Christian, went to a fairly Christian school, etc. In my early teens, I actually read the Bible from cover to cover... and found myself unable to believe it ALL... there were so many contradictions, so much that disagreed with what the church taught, so much that was just hateful or evil.

The more I read it, the less faith I could have in the Christian god.

At this point, I also took an interest in other religions... and sought out the 'holy books' whenever I could. And, I found that all the other faiths were just as certain that they were right, as Christianity asserts.

So - with all those hundreds of religions, all claiming they are right, and NONE of them with any actul evidence... what do you believe?

Let me give you a comparison... do you believe in ghosts? in Goblins? in Fairies? in Aliens? Do you believe Muppets are real? Do you believe that the universe is controlled by an Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Not trying to flame anyone, just correcting some mistaken points of view here.

1. God gives you a choice in whether you want to go to heaven, or to hell. If you don't want God on earth, than you sure as hell don't want him in heaven. It's your choice. Try reading C.S. Lewis' book "The Great Divorce", it gives you an excellent insight into the whole heaven/hell philosophy.

2. One of Jesus' last commandments was "to go make disciples of all nations". So it's kind of a perogative for christians to try to convert others.

3. There's no way you can disprove God with facts just as there is no way to prove he exists with facts. It all depends on what you "believe".

4. Jesus also said that Christians would be persecuted as long as they believed in him. In this day and age more christians are killed for their faith than ever before, it even exceeds the time of the Romans. So, Christians shouldn't get all mad about being put down, in fact you should expect it and embrace it.

That's all for now.


1. This would depend on your understanding of God. If by God you see a symbol of perfection that has been, and is, used by falliable men to advance real-world physical interests (wealth & power) then no: you do not want this God in this life or any other...

If God is a real actual entity and IS everywhere and IS everything, then the people you criticise are inevitably talking from a point of ignorance, and if tha is the case you are telling them that ignorance includes the ultimate penalty (hell) which seems somehat foolish - although very darwinian, in a sense...


2. Fair enough... but then one cannot argue if the anti-religious elements speak out against christianity.


3. Surely if facts of God's existence do not exist then God may as well not exist... Are you saying he has no effect on humanity - and effects that are completely understood are called facts.


4. Surely Jesus doesn't care if you believe in him - what is important is if you live like him. If every christian was like Ned Flanders, then Christians, and Ned Flanders, would probably be viewed in a radically different light. Does a man get condemned for believing in/thinking of evil? So why would he get elevated for believing in/thinking of good? Surely it is all about one's actions, whatever side of the religious divide you lie on... consequently belief is the least important of a christian ethos.

Methinks this idea of belief was integral to the "selling" of the religion to the notoriously decadent Roman Empire in Christianity's begginings. Dont matter what you do (subdue nations under the imperial throne) so long as you feign belief towards the doctrine.

Answering questions asked is respectful and encourages a thinking,reasoning response.Advertising a meeting and inviting voluntary attendance is respectful and encourages the same. ;)
Since the question also covers the reaction of those in opposition and their unsolicited harangue,here goes my opinion. :D

Those who begin by proving how wrong and stupid you are according to their enlightened views are boorish and annoying.Trying to preach a morality that others disagree with, despite their verbal disapproval of the tactics used, is also boorish and annoying. :gundge:

Only those open to knowledge can be reasoned with.Debate with the all-knowing is a useless endeavor. :headbang:

Let me give you a comparison... do you believe in ghosts? in Goblins? in Fairies? in Aliens? Do you believe Muppets are real? Do you believe that the universe is controlled by an Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and no. :p

That doesn't matter on this case. I talked about hell and heaven, meaning 2 places: unconfortable place and a comfortable place. Place that everybody are willing to go and place that no one want's to go.


What about the British - they love to complain...

Catch-22.

So everyone else has to have a discussion based on your own personal definitions of heaven and hell?



Strawman. There is no one out there who believes nothing at all other than what the Bible explicitly says.

FFS if the conversation is based on your reply&quote of my text then hell yeah!

Yes there is. Plenty of them. In USA atleast there is still people telling to their childrens that dinosaurs are fake, that gays are bad because Adam and Eva weren't Adam and Steve, and people searching for the Zoo-boat of Noak.

What about the British - they love to complain...

Catch-22.


Hmm. I didn't thought about that... Propably they aren't humans anyways, so lets just skip that. :p

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and no. :p

Glad you edited that... I was worried for a moment that you were having a crisis of Muppet-faith. :)

Anyway - this is enough to illustrate my example.

People with an agenda to sell have forced the public consciousness to a point where it is almost compulsary to have an opinion about 'god'.

So - you either believe, or you need an excuse why not... which is a ridiculous state of affairs.

If someone claims to believe that Muppets are real... the onus would immediately be on them, to explain WHY they believed such a thing... indeed, proof would probably be required.

Similarly... when ghosts are discussed, the 'neutral' position is considered to be the skeptic position... and evidence is required, or a good reason, from those who DO believe.

There is no categorisation of A-goblinists, or A-fairyists... it is taken as read that the DEFAULT position is skeptical...

All except in religion... where we are all BORN skeptical (we don't even 'understand' religion, until we are taught about it)... and yet, it is somehow considered strange to NOT have a belief.

I've got a question:

Why is it that so many posters are talking about what they choose to believe in?

I have never made a conscious choice to believe in something. I either do or I don't or I don't know. Isn't it a little intellectually dishonest to say you believe in something just because you chose to?

I've got a question:

Why is it that so many posters are talking about what they choose to believe in?

I have never made a conscious choice to believe in something. I either do or I don't or I don't know. Isn't it a little intellectually dishonest to say you believe in something just because you chose to?
No. It means that we have considered other beliefs and found that our own beliefs are what make the most sense to us, though I probably shouldn't be speaking for others.

Glad you edited that... I was worried for a moment that you were having a crisis of Muppet-faith. :)

Anyway - this is enough to illustrate my example.

People with an agenda to sell have forced the public consciousness to a point where it is almost compulsary to have an opinion about 'god'.

So - you either believe, or you need an excuse why not... which is a ridiculous state of affairs.

If someone claims to believe that Muppets are real... the onus would immediately be on them, to explain WHY they believed such a thing... indeed, proof would probably be required.

Similarly... when ghosts are discussed, the 'neutral' position is considered to be the skeptic position... and evidence is required, or a good reason, from those who DO believe.

There is no categorisation of A-goblinists, or A-fairyists... it is taken as read that the DEFAULT position is skeptical...

All except in religion... where we are all BORN skeptical (we don't even 'understand' religion, until we are taught about it)... and yet, it is somehow considered strange to NOT have a belief.

Agreed. When something is very unlikely, like that Earth is a football of SperMegaMuppet, then it is usually thought that the one who says so has to prove it. But when it comes to religion, like Jesus waking up after his death and flying to the heaven the fact that this cant be DISPROVED is used as a argument. Which is ridicilous.

I have been waiting for something like this! :headbang:

First, there's nothing wrong with christ. He seems like an ok dude. It's his fan club that's a problem.

I myself am an atheist. If you believe in Christ, go friggin nuts, i don't care. But It becomes a problem when you try to convert people all the time. Being Conservative is ok too, but being an evangelist <b>usually</b> means the follow:

"I'm right about religion, your not. Follow me or be an outcast. Those are your choices"

This fundamental belief system usually leads to...

1. :sniper:
2. :mp5:
3. :gundge:

The problem with trying to convert people is that it is saying that you think your way of thinking is right and there's id wrong no matter what.

Islam is as legitimate in it's explanation to explain the workings of the universe and god as Christianity. Same with Judaism, Buddhism, Janism, Sheikism ect.

The level of legitimacy is debatable.

A lot of Fundies think that if everyone is the same as them, then there's nothing wrong with the world.

Well can you guess why the world is so screwed up?

If you guessed because of irrational thinking in people beliefs, you win!

Again, religion isn't the problem, it's the people who try to push it on everyone else.

I've got a question:

Why is it that so many posters are talking about what they choose to believe in?

I have never made a conscious choice to believe in something. I either do or I don't or I don't know. Isn't it a little intellectually dishonest to say you believe in something just because you chose to?


How else could it be then? Is it better if it is told to you by your parents, like most of the people?

How else could it be then? Is it better if it is told to you by your parents, like most of the people?

You have illustrated my point perfectly. Thank you.

No problem with it here.

Somehow this whole forum ended the co-operation last night, and it seems it happened to rest of you, too. Or did this thread just die because I left it? :p

1. This would depend on your understanding of God. If by God you see a symbol of perfection that has been, and is, used by falliable men to advance real-world physical interests (wealth & power) then no: you do not want this God in this life or any other...

If God is a real actual entity and IS everywhere and IS everything, then the people you criticise are inevitably talking from a point of ignorance, and if tha is the case you are telling them that ignorance includes the ultimate penalty (hell) which seems somehat foolish - although very darwinian, in a sense...


2. Fair enough... but then one cannot argue if the anti-religious elements speak out against christianity.


3. Surely if facts of God's existence do not exist then God may as well not exist... Are you saying he has no effect on humanity - and effects that are completely understood are called facts.


4. Surely Jesus doesn't care if you believe in him - what is important is if you live like him. If every christian was like Ned Flanders, then Christians, and Ned Flanders, would probably be viewed in a radically different light. Does a man get condemned for believing in/thinking of evil? So why would he get elevated for believing in/thinking of good? Surely it is all about one's actions, whatever side of the religious divide you lie on... consequently belief is the least important of a christian ethos.

Methinks this idea of belief was integral to the "selling" of the religion to the notoriously decadent Roman Empire in Christianity's begginings. Dont matter what you do (subdue nations under the imperial throne) so long as you feign belief towards the doctrine.
Number 4 is blatantly wrong. the Bible says many times that belief is the deciding factor. it doesn't matter how good u are, if u don't ask for forgiveness, ur not goin to heaven.

FFS if the conversation is based on your reply&quote of my text then hell yeah!


In that case, you have to define your words exactly when you use them. Otherwise, you are leaving them up to the interpretation of anyone else.

Yes there is. Plenty of them. In USA atleast there is still people telling to their childrens that dinosaurs are fake, that gays are bad because Adam and Eva weren't Adam and Steve, and people searching for the Zoo-boat of Noak.

I hate to break it to you, but those things are not "everything in the Bible", nor is it the entirety of everything those people believe. In fact, some of that isn't in the Bible at all.

Number 4 is blatantly wrong. the Bible says many times that belief is the deciding factor. it doesn't matter how good u are, if u don't ask for forgiveness, ur not goin to heaven.

While faith is the deciding factor, true faith will manifest itself into good works. If you just believe IE think like that then its pretty valueless. You "believe" that God created the world and sent his son Jesus to die on a cross to deal with all the worlds sin. Good for you, so does the devil. Knowledge alone wont help you. If you have true faith then you have to attempt to live the life Christ dictated us to live. I agree with you that salvation is not decided by the quality/quantity of your good works but faith without works is dead (see James)

In Scripture, hell is simply the absence of God. Separation from God. Obviously, to those that love God, such a separation could be compared to being on fire, etc. To an atheist, would it really be a "punishment"?

Well, yes. You see God is present in this world all the time and as a result of his presence the world is sustained. Complete absence of him in mens hearts and actions lead to evil (Absence of Godlyness is what evil is). So without God on Earth as he is now the world would decend into, well a very torturous and nasty place.

Well, yes. You see God is present in this world all the time and as a result of his presence the world is sustained. Complete absence of him in mens hearts and actions lead to evil (Absence of Godlyness is what evil is). So without God on Earth as he is now the world would decend into, well a very torturous and nasty place.

...which is irrelevant if that is the existence that you have chosen for yourself.

...which is irrelevant if that is the existence that you have chosen for yourself.

Irrelevent. Im not sure I understand you. When I say tortuous and nasty, I dont just mean what people do, I mean the planet itself. God sustains the place itself. Without him it will fall into horrible decay, and be litrally hell. For example, the EM field may start cracking up and so we all get nice doses of cosmic rays. Its also hell in comparison to heaven. At the end times, everyone will be aware of how wonderful and amazing heaven is, so just not being there will be tortuous of itself.

Irrelevent. Im not sure I understand you. When I say tortuous and nasty, I dont just mean what people do, I mean the planet itself. God sustains the place itself. Without him it will fall into horrible decay, and be litrally hell. For example, the EM field may start cracking up and so we all get nice doses of cosmic rays

That is your belief, however. It isn't really scripturally upheld.

That is your belief, however. It isn't really scripturally upheld.

What about revelation? That sort of paints the picture of what I am talking about

What about revelation? That sort of paints the picture of what I am talking about

Revelation describes what will happen when those who are evil completely take over the world. However, God is never completely removed from it.

Interestingly enough, it also seems to support the idea that heaven will actually be on Earth, but in the complete presence of God.

Well, yes. You see God is present in this world all the time and as a result of his presence the world is sustained. Complete absence of him in mens hearts and actions lead to evil (Absence of Godlyness is what evil is). So without God on Earth as he is now the world would decend into, well a very torturous and nasty place.

You have just made a claim that directly leads to the asumption that Atheists are evil.

Sticking by that, or are you going to try to wriggle out of it?

Irrelevent. Im not sure I understand you. When I say tortuous and nasty, I dont just mean what people do, I mean the planet itself. God sustains the place itself. Without him it will fall into horrible decay, and be litrally hell. For example, the EM field may start cracking up and so we all get nice doses of cosmic rays. Its also hell in comparison to heaven. At the end times, everyone will be aware of how wonderful and amazing heaven is, so just not being there will be tortuous of itself.

Interesting belief, Neo.

You think that electromagnetic radiation effects are somehow dependent on some kind of 'god' field?

Let's look into that more deeply... what non-scriptural evidence do you have?

If you are right - Atheists should get different results to science experimentation, than those obtained by Christians, surely?

And, I don't actually remember scripture backing your claim, either... not without some really bizarre twisting of the Bible text, I suspect...

Interesting belief, Neo.

You think that electromagnetic radiation effects are somehow dependent on some kind of 'god' field?

Let's look into that more deeply... what non-scriptural evidence do you have?

If you are right - Atheists should get different results to science experimentation, than those obtained by Christians, surely?

And, I don't actually remember scripture backing your claim, either... not without some really bizarre twisting of the Bible text, I suspect...

Its just an example. The idea being that the world only is sutaining us as it is now because of God's presence. Ergo without God's presence the world will no longer be sustaining us and so things like the EM field will begin to decay. Basicly its an explaination of hell as being the absence of God.

You have just made a claim that directly leads to the asumption that Atheists are evil.

Sticking by that, or are you going to try to wriggle out of it?

No, I said absence of Godlyness, not absence of God. You can be Godly (as in do the things that are part of the life Jesus explained to us) but not be a Chrisitian.

"Why you should be Christian runs the same as Why evolution is right. Both are theoretical arguments."

Evolution is not a theory, there it is a fact. The theory part is how it takes place, i.e. natural selection.

Anyway, when christians try to convert people, it always comes across simply as, believe or go to hell. I myself am an agnostic and believe there is some kind of binding force, but much the same as gravity as a force. You could call it the Vital force if you will but there is no way you can convince me of angels and a man who no one can confirm did the things he did.

Eveyone knows why religion WAS necessary, simply as a means of controlling people and making sure they did the right thing. But people now are intelligent enough to realise why doing things a certain way are good and bad, the number of atheists has gone up and the world isn't a worse place to live in. It just gets to me that people think u need a religion to be moral.

Its just an example. The idea being that the world only is sutaining us as it is now because of God's presence. Ergo without God's presence the world will no longer be sustaining us and so things like the EM field will begin to decay. Basicly its an explaination of hell as being the absence of God.

See, the weird thing is... radiation 'works' on the Earth.

Radiation also 'works' under water.

Radiation also 'works' in space.

Radiation also 'works' on the moon.

Basically, wherever you go, radiation 'works' there... almost like it is governed by some kind of universal physics that holds true in pretty much every case.

Now - why should I believe your story about radiation actually requiring some kind of god-interference?

No, I said absence of Godlyness, not absence of God. You can be Godly (as in do the things that are part of the life Jesus explained to us) but not be a Chrisitian.

Somehow I KNEW you'd try to wriggle out of it... but you haven't managed it so far.

You said "Complete absence of him in mens hearts and actions lead to evil"... thus, since I am an Atheist, and believe your god to be nothing more than an unnecessary holdover from more superstitious times... a mere crutch for those too weak to face life alone... a delusion of the more insecure segment of the brain.... there is no 'god' in my heart.

Thus, by your express statement, I am "Evil".

Somehow I KNEW you'd try to wriggle out of it... but you haven't managed it so far.

You said "Complete absence of him in mens hearts and actions lead to evil"... thus, since I am an Atheist, and believe your god to be nothing more than an unnecessary holdover from more superstitious times... a mere crutch for those too weak to face life alone... a delusion of the more insecure segment of the brain.... there is no 'god' in my heart.

Thus, by your express statement, I am "Evil".

"Those who live in love live in God" saith Jesus.
Not "Those who live in God live in God"

"Those who live in love live in God" saith Jesus.
Not "Those who live in God live in God"

Flawed logic... that leads to the conclusion that "those who live in god" do not necessarily "live in god".

Somehow I KNEW you'd try to wriggle out of it... but you haven't managed it so far.

You said "Complete absence of him in mens hearts and actions lead to evil"
... thus, since I am an Atheist, and believe your god to be nothing more than an unnecessary holdover from more superstitious times... a mere crutch for those too weak to face life alone... a delusion of the more insecure segment of the brain.... there is no 'god' in my heart.

Thus, by your express statement, I am "Evil".

You dont have to be a Christian to have godly principals. There are plenty of people who lead Godly lives but are not themselves Christians. You are "evil" in the sense that you have rejected the greatest display of love ever shown to man, so in that respect you are treeting Jesus and God in an evil manner.

See, the weird thing is... radiation 'works' on the Earth.

Radiation also 'works' under water.

Radiation also 'works' in space.

Radiation also 'works' on the moon.

Basically, wherever you go, radiation 'works' there... almost like it is governed by some kind of universal physics that holds true in pretty much every case.

Now - why should I believe your story about radiation actually requiring some kind of god-interference?

It would also work, seing as God is (at the momemnt) omnipresent (everywhere)

Flawed logic... that leads to the conclusion that "those who live in god" do not necessarily "live in god".

Not all Christians lead Godly lives. You of all people know that Grave

Not all Christians lead Godly lives. You of all people know that Grave

Gosh, Neo, you just love throwing stones, don't you?

Gosh, Neo, you just love throwing stones, don't you?

I simpley meant that he keeps on pointing out instances of Christians who dont lead godly lives, like the Matthew Sheperd mob group.

I simpley meant that he keeps on pointing out instances of Christians who dont lead godly lives, like the Matthew Sheperd mob group.
If you're under the common delusion that when you look out over the assembled congregation on Sunday morning, that they are all happy, satisfied, loving, godly, unstained people cleansed of sin, you're fooling yourself.

People go to church precisely because they are sinners. Every last one. And each in his own way is leading a less than godly life. Including you.

Anyone who thinks differently - that somehow they are now cleansed and are unstained by their life - are fooling themselves.

If you're under the common delusion that when you look out over the assembled congregation on Sunday morning, that they are all happy, satisfied, loving, godly, unstained people cleansed of sin, you're fooling yourself.

People go to church precisely because they are sinners. Every last one. And each in his own way is leading a less than godly life. Including you.

Anyone who thinks differently - that somehow they are now cleansed and are unstained by their life - are fooling themselves.

I agree, obviously people do not lead perfectly Godly lives, but thats not what I said. Christians can and should make strides to lead the best and most Godly a life they can, which is what most do. Grave of course is fameous for pointing out examples where that is not the case. I never said that all Christians are perfect.

Really, you have to learn that constantly trying to spread the word to "everyone" is not what was intended. Nor is it demonstrated.

In fact, in Acts, there are very clear demonstrations that there are times and places and people to whom you will not and should not minister.

Some people have the idea that you're supposed to harangue everyone who shows the faintest interest in anything you happen to be talking about. This is not the case.

You would probably get more interest in your efforts if you were more selective about your audience. Otherwise, you're just pissing off people who will be even less likely to listen later.

Religion of any sort should not be "forced" upon a person. This includes slipping it into laws (and trying to keep laws secular is not a religious issue!), harassing people into listening to a religious rant, and threatening others with eternal damnation of some sort.
I myself am sick of the "bring prayer back into schools" It was taken out for a reason. Teachers and principals are not there to sermon children, they are there to teach them secular topics, like Health, Science, Math, etc.
No, the Ten Commandments do not belong at a courthouse. That is another form of making a public area religious. Doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible about obeying the laws of man? Well, secularism is the law of man in this country, so obey it!

And finally, leave me alone, and I leave you alone. I enjoy learning of different faiths, but on my time, not yours. Basic courtesy is a must.

Greetings again all!

I see this thread has continued on for 20 pages in the week and a half I've been gone. Not much new: got a B in Organic (sadly) and a vacation.

So I've come to realize that there's no way to respond to everything that's been posted in the past 20 pages, but I'll just say my piece. I promised to find some more information and sources about a number of different topics. I copied some of the pages from the book I keep recommending, but I emailed the publisher and they actually emailed me everything in pdf form, so you can download a lot of new stuff here:

http://www.geocities.com/mvaughan85/CC_Dwnld_NewEv_BBexcerptsPDF.zip

along with the old stuff here (no link to new stuff yet):

http://www.geocities.com/mvaughan85/

For those of you new to this, this book is called the New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, and he spent years (decades) as an athiest researching Christianity in an effort to disprove it. The result is that he converted and published all of his findings (the bibliography alone is 40 pages, 10 point font, single spaced). So the two links are a lot of excerpts from his book. He covers things like why the resurrection can be taken as historical fact, how we got the books of the Bible, the prophecies that Jesus Christ fulfilled and their import, and a host of other topics. I would encourage you to read some of this (if not all); it's a great read, even if it is a little slow. It's got supporting sources for every comment and it's loaded with brilliant logic.

I realize I'm not going to be able to read this thing any more, but if you want to talk one-on-one about Christianity (any topic is open; I'm willing to talk about anything), email me at mhvaughan@hotmail.com. I warn you, though, I'm leaving on a mission trip to Ukraine June 2, and I won't be back until July 2ish, but I'll get to any emails when I get back.

Really and truly guys, if you want to truly be able to say you've examined the claims of Christianity, read these pdfs. If they pique you're interest I'll buy you the book and have it shipped to you. These are probably the best arguments my side has to offer on a host of different subjects, and at the very least you can say you know what Christianity's arguments are and won't be misinformed.

God's peace to all. Jesus loves you (as cliche as that sounds, it's true!).

Michael Vaughan

I'm not bothered but a lot of ppl I know don't like the whole 'you don't believe in Jesus you burn in Hell' schpiel. (I can refute this w/text from the Bible but I won't go into it now)

"The main truth of the Bible is that Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation." - Taken directly from Luther's Catechism...

You can't get into heaven through good works or anything like that. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that you can get into Heaven without believing in Jesus. I could throw the book at you easily and prove you wrong.

All of you Atheists out there don't have to bitch about Christianty just because you don't believe in it. I mean, you shouldn't be bitching at all, it shows very low character.

Some say they hate trying to be converted to another religion, but most of you don't even have a religion, so wouldn't you be just gaining a religion rather then changing one?

Besides, it's the duty of all Christians to try and convert people to Christianity.

It seems many people on this forum have a serious problem with Christians who actively seek to convert others to Christianity and spread the word of Christ. Now I as a Chrisitian too do this, but so many people here seem to think there is something fundementally evil and wrong about it. However the same standard is not applied to Athiests here, who are quite entitled to go about talking about why Christianity is bunk. There is of course a major diffrence between forcing conversion and evanglialism. As a Christian you should never use force of threaten anyone into Christianity. All you can do is explain things to them, give them a Bible perhaps or show them one and some litriture. Yet people here are angry about people even doing that. Many people I think are angry with the Christian assertion that Chrisitanity is the truth. Thats what faith means however, belief something is true despite being unable to be certian of it. They have that faith, which they want you to have too, is there anything wrong with that. If they are not forcing you, not threatening you, not using force or vilonce then what is wrong. If its what they say that offends you, you could just have the common sense to ignore it. So what is everyones problem with it?


Nothing. I merely get annoyed at people lecturing me on Christianity when I know about it already. I was brought up a devout Protestant and turned to Atheism as I could not stand the bigotry and stubborness of those involved, including my family. If someone preaches to me in the street and tries to stop me I politely ask them not to bother. It is if they carry on pestering me that I get angry. So what is your problem with that?

Why do I not like evangelical Christians? Being one myself for a while, I understand what tactics they use and have tried using them. I found that I can't do this. I'm glad I grew out of that phase....

So if you want to tell me about your religion, go ahead. The moment you try the "you're going to hell" argument is when you'll find out just how stubborn I can get. You'll also hear me using Christ's own words against you: "Do not judge, or you will also be judged." (Matt. 7:1, NIV)

He also said, "Whatsoever a man sows, so shall he reap." Many tend to forget the significance of that first word. So please think before you try to convert me. I happen to like being who I am.

p.s: I out-argued a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses one morning..... :p They just didn't get the not-so-subtle hint of "But I don't want to waste your time...." :rolleyes:

(please TG me after this; I doubt I'll come back in here again.)

Greetings again all!

I see this thread has continued on for 20 pages in the week and a half I've been gone. Not much new: got a B in Organic (sadly) and a vacation.

So I've come to realize that there's no way to respond to everything that's been posted in the past 20 pages, but I'll just say my piece. I promised to find some more information and sources about a number of different topics. I copied some of the pages from the book I keep recommending, but I emailed the publisher and they actually emailed me everything in pdf form, so you can download a lot of new stuff here:

http://www.geocities.com/mvaughan85/CC_Dwnld_NewEv_BBexcerptsPDF.zip

along with the old stuff here (no link to new stuff yet):

http://www.geocities.com/mvaughan85/

For those of you new to this, this book is called the New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, and he spent years (decades) as an athiest researching Christianity in an effort to disprove it. The result is that he converted and published all of his findings (the bibliography alone is 40 pages, 10 point font, single spaced). So the two links are a lot of excerpts from his book. He covers things like why the resurrection can be taken as historical fact, how we got the books of the Bible, the prophecies that Jesus Christ fulfilled and their import, and a host of other topics. I would encourage you to read some of this (if not all); it's a great read, even if it is a little slow. It's got supporting sources for every comment and it's loaded with brilliant logic.

I realize I'm not going to be able to read this thing any more, but if you want to talk one-on-one about Christianity (any topic is open; I'm willing to talk about anything), email me at mhvaughan@hotmail.com. I warn you, though, I'm leaving on a mission trip to Ukraine June 2, and I won't be back until July 2ish, but I'll get to any emails when I get back.

Really and truly guys, if you want to truly be able to say you've examined the claims of Christianity, read these pdfs. If they pique you're interest I'll buy you the book and have it shipped to you. These are probably the best arguments my side has to offer on a host of different subjects, and at the very least you can say you know what Christianity's arguments are and won't be misinformed.

God's peace to all. Jesus loves you (as cliche as that sounds, it's true!).

Michael Vaughan

Ooooh, a drive-by evangelising... nice trick.

Throw out a load of contestable content, then hide... that way you can claim a kind of empirical victory, since nobody objected....

Personally, I suspect the book must be a pile of crap, if:

a) the publisher is wiling to just send people .pdf versions of it, and

b) the guy makes the claim that he spent however many years trying to 'discredit' Christianity. That is obviously dishonest, since you don't need to look for evidence that specifically DENIES christianty, when a rough look at the evidence reveals there is no evidence FOR Christianity.

Thus - the writer must have been a Christian to start with, or his premise is dishonest. Andm, since the claim is made that he 'converted' to Christianity... we have to suspect that he was NOT a Christian... so something just doesn't add up. At some point, this author is lying... but hey - whatever gets you published.

Grave_n_idle:

I wouldn't call this a "drive-by" since if you'll look about twenty pages back there are about a dozen posts to my name, and that I was really active with this thread before I went on vacation and it got out of hand (along with the fact that I'm about to leave for Ukraine and won't be able to respond).

I am not hiding, either. I did provide my email address and instructions on how to reach me. When I get back from Ukraine, anyone who wishes to carry on a coversation will receive an email from me and I'm willing to spend as much time as necessary or wanted on any particular subject.

As to your objections to the book, I would encourage you to actually READ some of it before tossing your opinions around. There is a good chapter entitled "He Changed My Life" that deals with the author's background, research, and subsequent conversion to Christianity.

It's not exactly a new thing. There have been many authors who have such an extreme aversion to Christianity that they go out of their way to try to disprove it. Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and even C.S. Lewis (to a point) are three examples that jump to mind, but I must confess that I haven't read much of Strobel's work. I myself followed the same path.

Basically, his story goes like this. He was a college student that went out of his way to argue against Christianity (no, he wasn't a Christian) with his classmates and friends. He wanted to prove them wrong and he wanted to know the solid facts that he could do it with. He researched things like manuscript documentation and verification and archaeology. He read everything that he could get his hands on. He examined the claims of the resurrection with the mind of a lawyer. He did research about the claims of prophetic foretellings of Christ's birth, life, death, and resurrection. After examining all this, he was struck with the fact that he couldn't disprove the claims of Christianity. In fact, he discovered that the evidence for Christianity was far stronger than the evidence against it (and before you make any judgements, try actually reading the pdfs). He gave his life to Christ, and Christ radically altered and transformed him. He found peace and grace and love. So he took all his research and tried to put it into the hands of both Christians who aren't aware of all the evidence that backs their faith and non-Christians who have intellectual obstacles between them and Jesus. He was willing to provide me with the .pdfs because he wants the same thing that I do and the vast majority of Christianity-for people like you to be able to experience the wonder of a relationship with Christ Jesus. Profits are not his motive--they take most of the proceeds and pour them into efforts to reach the lost.

I hope some of that may help, and I'm telling you the truth: if you want to ask anything of me, of my story, questions you may face about Christianity, or anything else, please email me ( mhvaughan@hotmail.com ) and I'll answer them as fast as I can. I once thought the same way as you, but after a few years of doing my own research I came to know Jesus Christ, and he has radically transformed my own life, which I'm offering as an open book to you. Any question is allowed (and that goes for any of you on this board). Jesus Christ loves you, and he wants to offer you true life and an intimate relationship with himself. It stands before you, and all you have to do is accept it. It's not about what we do to earn salvation--it's not possible, because we would have to be perfect. Rather, it's about accepting the gift that Christ has already bought for us. I did, and I've not once regretted that decision.

Test me; test us; test God. Ask me questions. Read some of the book. Examine our claims. Ask God to show you if he truly exists or not and to lead you to the truth. It's not like you have anything to lose.

God's peace,
Michael Vaughan

Edit: I figured I'd post the link once more. http://www.geocities.com/mvaughan85/
The first link has the pdfs, and then below are a couple of things that aren't in the pdfs.

Grave_n_idle:

I wouldn't call this a "drive-by" since if you'll look about twenty pages back there are about a dozen posts to my name, and that I was really active with this thread before I went on vacation and it got out of hand (along with the fact that I'm about to leave for Ukraine and won't be able to respond).

I am not hiding, either. I did provide my email address and instructions on how to reach me. When I get back from Ukraine, anyone who wishes to carry on a coversation will receive an email from me and I'm willing to spend as much time as necessary or wanted on any particular subject.

As to your objections to the book, I would encourage you to actually READ some of it before tossing your opinions around. There is a good chapter entitled "He Changed My Life" that deals with the author's background, research, and subsequent conversion to Christianity.

It's not exactly a new thing. There have been many authors who have such an extreme aversion to Christianity that they go out of their way to try to disprove it. Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and even C.S. Lewis (to a point) are three examples that jump to mind, but I must confess that I haven't read much of Strobel's work. I myself followed the same path.

Basically, his story goes like this. He was a college student that went out of his way to argue against Christianity (no, he wasn't a Christian) with his classmates and friends. He wanted to prove them wrong and he wanted to know the solid facts that he could do it with. He researched things like manuscript documentation and verification and archaeology. He read everything that he could get his hands on. He examined the claims of the resurrection with the mind of a lawyer. He did research about the claims of prophetic foretellings of Christ's birth, life, death, and resurrection. After examining all this, he was struck with the fact that he couldn't disprove the claims of Christianity. In fact, he discovered that the evidence for Christianity was far stronger than the evidence against it (and before you make any judgements, try actually reading the pdfs). He gave his life to Christ, and Christ radically altered and transformed him. He found peace and grace and love. So he took all his research and tried to put it into the hands of both Christians who aren't aware of all the evidence that backs their faith and non-Christians who have intellectual obstacles between them and Jesus. He was willing to provide me with the .pdfs because he wants the same thing that I do and the vast majority of Christianity-for people like you to be able to experience the wonder of a relationship with Christ Jesus. Profits are not his motive--they take most of the proceeds and pour them into efforts to reach the lost.

I hope some of that may help, and I'm telling you the truth: if you want to ask anything of me, of my story, questions you may face about Christianity, or anything else, please email me ( mhvaughan@hotmail.com ) and I'll answer them as fast as I can. I once thought the same way as you, but after a few years of doing my own research I came to know Jesus Christ, and he has radically transformed my own life, which I'm offering as an open book to you. Any question is allowed (and that goes for any of you on this board). Jesus Christ loves you, and he wants to offer you true life and an intimate relationship with himself. It stands before you, and all you have to do is accept it. It's not about what we do to earn salvation--it's not possible, because we would have to be perfect. Rather, it's about accepting the gift that Christ has already bought for us. I did, and I've not once regretted that decision.

Test me; test us; test God. Ask me questions. Read some of the book. Examine our claims. Ask God to show you if he truly exists or not and to lead you to the truth. It's not like you have anything to lose.

God's peace,
Michael Vaughan

Edit: I figured I'd post the link once more. http://www.geocities.com/mvaughan85/
The first link has the pdfs, and then below are a couple of things that aren't in the pdfs.

'Drive by' in this context, refers to the fact that you pop in to give your opinion, and depart saying that you probably won't read this again, and thanks for your time... basically.

I don't trust anyone who claims that they 'set out to discredit Christianity'. That is, to be blunt, a lie. There are thousands of religions, and hundreds of denominations within MOST of them... on this world today.

For someone to claim that the specifically are setting out to discredit JUST ONE of those, is an admission of sorts... that they are in fact wrestling with issues IN THAT RELIGION. C.S. Lewis may have told others he was trying to 'kill' Christianity... hell, he may even have convinced himself.... but, if he HADN'T been conflicted over some issue of that faith before, he wouldn't have made the effort to attack it.

To try to simplify: How many people have written books about how they came to worship the "Great Pink Unicorn that Lives in the Sky", PURELY because tehy were trying to discredit it?

Answer? None, I'd imagine. You don't attempt to discredit that which you consider below contempt.

I'm not attacking you, I'm sure YOU are telling us the truth as you see it. But, unfortunately, your apologists make liars of themselves with outrageous claims that do not stand up to scrutiny.

I haven't read the texts you mentioned.. but I have read Lewis... and have to admit the same conclusions about him, with the same 'rationale' given.

For all your arguments, there IS no evidence of the Christian god. That is why it is known as 'faith'. So - to assert that someone was brought to god, by the EVIDENCE, is to call them faithless, or is a failing to understand what faith IS.

I have been a Christian. I have 'tested'. I have examined the claims.

I have found that it is all sum, and no substance.

All religions proselytize, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, whatever. What's wrong is when faith is forced or bought. Then it's not true faith at all. That's where the early church went horribly, wrong, with mass conversions or watering down the faith to attract pagans.

Maharlikana