NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly, I would like to make it clear that this is not an apologetics thread. We are not arguing whether or not the Bible etc is true. I am just here to answer questions about why Christians believe what they believe.

So, ask a Chrisitan (Me) about why I believe what I believe

A few biographical details

Age: 18
Occupation: Student of international relations and politics
Location: Originally from Croydon, now studying in Canterbury
Denomination: Born again
Church: Oakhall church (I only state this in case some people have heard of the holiday company), Dennmark hall, Barton Evangelical.
Favourite Bible verse: Romans 8:31

I foresee a trend.

what makes you think anyone is interested in what a christian thinks?

ok. why do you believe what you believe?

These kind of thread are verboten, no?

Uh last I read from the mods only Muslims were allowed to have "Ask A" threads, so one of us will probably get a nasty gram. Me for pointing it out or you for having it.

Hostility. That figures. I could tell you why he does it.

Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

I foresee a trend.

It's not just me that has a strange feeling of déjà vu, then?

I foresee a trend.

It's not just me that has a strange feeling of déjà vu, then?
.

It's not just me that has a strange feeling of déjà vu, then?
.

hmm, this post gives me déjà vu...wierd...

Heres a question. Why'd you make this thread?

Firstly, I would like to make it clear that this is not an apologetics thread. We are not arguing whether or not the Bible etc is true. I am just here to answer questions about why Christians believe what they believe.

So, ask a Chrisitan (Me) about why I believe what I believe

A few biographical details

Age: 18
Occupation: Student of international relations and politics
Location: Originally from Croydon, now studying in Canterbury
Denomination: Born again
Church: Oakhall church (I only state this in case some people have heard of the holiday company), Dennmark hall, Barton Evangelical.
Favourite Bible verse: Romans 8:31

My question is, how do you feel about the following. More specifically, the third quote:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9648150&postcount=12

Matthew 5:10 Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

You go, Avalon.

On the Sunday morning after Jesus death, the women brought spices and oils that they had purchased and prepared. When did they purchase and prepare them?

On the Sunday morning after Jesus death, the women brought spices and oils that they had purchased and prepared. When did they purchase and prepare them?
At Dollar Duz It, any Biblical scholar knows that.

There are dozens of reasons to be a christian but I'm not aware of any good ones.

There are dozens of reasons to be a christian but I'm not aware of any good ones.
Are Chrisitians the ones who get free Tin Foil hats with entry?
Nevermind, those are Scientologists.

On the Sunday morning after Jesus death, the women brought spices and oils that they had purchased and prepared. When did they purchase and prepare them?

Hey, I think I read the thing you posted about this before...

I don't have a vested interest in the specific day break-up of the events, but couldn't they have purchased/prepared them on the "Saturday" night? That's the only way I can see the Mark passage working out:

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint him. Very early when the sun had risen, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb.

Of course, in Luke they bought the spices beforehand:

...they returned and prepared spices and perfumed oils. Then they rested on the sabbath according to the commandment. But at daybreak on the first day of the week they took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.

I don't remember all of what you said earlier, and some may not have heard it at all. Is it plausible that the spices could have been bought/prepared either before the sabbath or immediately after?

If the Luke interpretation of having the spices bought beforehand makes sense, then I'd like to see if the original to the Mark text could be interpreted as "had already bought".

Are Chrisitians the ones who get free Tin Foil hats with entry?
Nevermind, those are Scientologists.

Not the British Royal Army of World War I era?

Age: 18
Occupation: Student
Denomination: Mormon
Favourite Scripture: Matt. 10: 34 (KJB: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.")

Before anyone asks, yes Mormons are Christians. I'll answer any questions you want as well.

Age: 18
Occupation: Student
Denomination: Mormon
Favourite Scripture: Matt. 10: 34 (KJB: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.")

Before anyone asks, yes Mormons are Christians. I'll answer any questions you want as well.

Excellent! I do have a few real questions for a Morman Christian:

(1a) At what point did the great apostasy occur? Was it during the time described in the book of Acts? Before the Gospels were written? During the time of the "church fathers" who wrote during the apostles' lives, or perhaps after? When Christianity was made legal in the Roman Empire? When it became the state religion of Rome? Was it just gradually?

(1b) If there was a great apostasy, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints brought people back to the way Jesus taught things, then does this mean the ways and beliefs taught by the Book of Morman, et al, are the actual ways and beliefs that Jesus taught his apostles? If so, why did the apostles not write of these in their epistles and Gospels, which the Morman church recognises as divine truth? If the angel Moroni showed the golden plates for the first time to Joseph Smith and not to the apostles, then how can there be a claim that the early Church lost what it never had?

(2) How does the concept of "eternal marriage" fit with what Christ teaches in Matthew? The Sadducees describe the scenario:

"Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother. The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven. Finally the woman died. Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her." Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures of the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven."

(3) If the greatest blessings of heaven cannot await those who choose an unmarried life, then why does Christ claim that some
have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven?
Why does Paul write that
An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided
(among numerous other verses where he recommends staying unmarried, as he is)

These are a few of my bigger questions, as a Roman Catholic.

Age: 18
Occupation: Student
Denomination: Mormon
Favourite Scripture: Matt. 10: 34 (KJB: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.")

Before anyone asks, yes Mormons are Christians. I'll answer any questions you want as well.

Ahem, Mormons are not Christians. Joseph Smith started the movement as an answer to the Great Apostasy of the Christian Church and Therefore are diametrically opposed to the beliefs held by Mainstream Christians. Most Mainstream Christians consider Mormonism not a Chrisitan Sect but a whole new religion in and of itself. Therefore Mormon =/= Christian. One more thing Revelation outside of the Bible is a no-no. IE "The Book of Mormon"

I supply the definition of Christian from dictionary.com.
"Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus."
Just because we aren't mainstream christians doesn't mean jack. I'm pretty sure the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka the Mormons) is a Christian faith.

One more thing Revelation outside of the Bible is a no-no. IE "The Book of Mormon"
That's bull. The New Testament is not compiled chronologically, and much of the revelation found in other books of the New Testament came after that verse was written. Are you accusing the apostles of lying to us? That verse applies only to the Book of Revalations, which our church has not attempted to alter or add to.
Now, on to somebody with cosiderable claims.


Excellent! I do have a few real questions for a Morman Christian:

(1a) At what point did the great apostasy occur? Was it during the time described in the book of Acts? Before the Gospels were written? During the time of the "church fathers" who wrote during the apostles' lives, or perhaps after? When Christianity was made legal in the Roman Empire? When it became the state religion of Rome? Was it just gradually?

According to the Mormon views of the Apostacy, it happened the instant the apostles were killed. We believe that removed the proper priesthood authority (ordination under God's order) to leadership in the church, and that it needed to be restored. Baptists, I am told, believe this same thing but do not believe in its restoration yet.

(1b) If there was a great apostasy, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints brought people back to the way Jesus taught things, then does this mean the ways and beliefs taught by the Book of Morman, et al, are the actual ways and beliefs that Jesus taught his apostles? If so, why did the apostles not write of these in their epistles and Gospels, which the Morman church recognises as divine truth? If the angel Moroni showed the golden plates for the first time to Joseph Smith and not to the apostles, then how can there be a claim that the early Church lost what it never had?

You misunderstand the Book of Mormon, and I would suggest reading it to further understand. It is not meant as an addition to the bible, but a clarification of Bible context (as well as a history of the Lord's children in the Americas). You see, over several translations from hebrew to greek to latin to german to english (as is the case in some translations of the bible), things tend to be lost in translation. Plus, people translating the bible would often change things simply because they seemed impobable (in attempt to avoid bad translation). The Book of Mormon is revelation directly from God to clear up those mistakes.

(2) How does the concept of "eternal marriage" fit with what Christ teaches in Matthew? The Sadducees describe the scenario:

Matthew 22:25-30
"Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother. The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven. Finally the woman died. Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her." Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures of the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven."

To be honest, I don't know (I'm just a college freshman, not a religion expert). One theory would be that it is mistranslated for the reasons stated in my previous answer, and is what I am most likely to believe. Another theory is that he was discussing marriage as it was at the time, not a priesthood ordiance like eternal marriage, but a temporal earthly commitment to eachother before God.

(3) If the greatest blessings of heaven cannot await those who choose an unmarried life, then why does Christ claim that some have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12)?

Why does Paul write:
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
"An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided (among numerous other verses where he recommends staying unmarried, as he is)"

First off, the King James version of Mathew 19:12, the most directly translated version, doesn't say people give up marriage, but rather become eunichs. Also at the end of that verse, Christ himself announces that he has just said something very cryptic: "He that is able to recieve it, let him recieve it."
The second verse you quoted is specifically intended for missionaries, who are to be entirely devoted to God in all things they do. Once missionaries return from their missions they are free to have the interests of their wife first, otherwise marriage would not have been ordained of God since marrying Adam and Eve.

These are a few of my bigger questions, as a Roman Catholic.

I hope I answered them adaquetly without offense. You can find out more about basic questions at http://www.mormon.org/, if you're interested.

what makes you think anyone is interested in what a christian thinks?

Because people seem so ready to object to its beliefs all the time, I felt it should be made clear what those beliefs are

Heres a question. Why'd you make this thread?

Why do any of us make any threads?

If you think this thread is so superflous why did you post?

ok, here's the point.


If anyone wanted to know anything at all about Christianity they could just post a question about it and wait for all the responses from people like yourself.


It's not acceptable (i.e. mods rules) to start a thread like this - I'm surprised it hasn't been closed already.

That's bull. The New Testament is not compiled chronologically, and much of the revelation found in other books of the New Testament came after that verse was written. Are you accusing the apostles of lying to us? That verse applies only to the Book of Revalations, which our church has not attempted to alter or add to.


If your Church can provide any serious evidence for anything that the Book of Mormon claims I will be greatly suprised. To date you have zero archaeological evidence for any events described in the Book of Mormon. Please Explain.

I also have a a problem with the fact that you say the Bible has been translated "wrong" over the years but you still quote it as being scripture. Please Explain.

ok, here's the point.


If anyone wanted to know anything at all about Christianity they could just post a question about it and wait for all the responses from people like yourself.


It's not acceptable (i.e. mods rules) to start a thread like this - I'm surprised it hasn't been closed already.

Which mod rule does it break?

OK, here's my question:

How do you tell which parts of the Bible are meant literal and which are not?

Which mod rule does it break?

Check out post #12

My problem with this thread is that no two denominations would answer the same way. I could ask whether or not you can "fall away" and Catholics, Wesleyan Evangelicas (church of god, assemblies of god, ect.), and Baptist would immediately be at odds with one another. So, I guess i'm saying this is probably not the best outlet for this discussion.

OK, here's my question:

How do you tell which parts of the Bible are meant literal and which are not?

well, Jesus' parables are just stories which reveal a message. But the other stuff like Noah's ark, the creation story, the tower of babble, etc could be taken as either depending on what type of cristian you are.

And yes, this does break one of the mods' rules, as you'll notice that other "Ask A" threads are being locked as we speak. Maybe this hasn't been locked because we're actually discussing things. Maybe it'll be locked soon. ::shrugs::

My problem with this thread is that no two denominations would answer the same way. I could ask whether or not you can "fall away" and Catholics, Wesleyan Evangelicas (church of god, assemblies of god, ect.), and Baptist would immediately be at odds with one another. So, I guess i'm saying this is probably not the best outlet for this discussion.

Ah, but that's why it is a good outlet! You can get various Christian interpretations of a thing via the different posts.

How do you tell which parts of the Bible are meant literal and which are not?

Another Catholic can correct me if I'm wrong on our take on this.

One version of this answer is easy: we believe that the Church councils, like the apostles before them, are guided by God when they decide on specific matters of faith (i.e. "dogma"). Usually they won't say specifically which parts of the Bible are literal... even that news article that keeps popping up on these threads (the one that lists which verses the Church decided were literal) does not cite any official dogma; that list is just a number of guesses. The Church only authoritatively states whether a verse is literal whenever it's a specific concern of faith, such as the belief that Christ REALLY died and rose from the dead.

The other version of this answer is tricker: the Bible is only 100% accurate in regards to theology and God's nature, not with regards to science or even history. I mean, there are two conflicting creation stories! Still, even if they don't literally detail the physical process, they literally detail the way God went about it.

"What did he just say?" Yeah, it may make about as much sense as believing in a three-personed trinity as one person, or that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% man, but it's one of those beautiful paradoxes we love so much.

Also, if a Bible quote deals with a specifically spiritual matter, Catholicism is more likely to take it as literal truth. The belief that there was a great flood, or Jonah was swallowed by a big fish, or Jesus's family went to Egypt are all accounts of physical acts; they may very well be true, but not much is lost if they aren't. Jesus dying, resurrecting, and ascending, however, while physical events, have spiritual matters as their core.

Likewise, the "this is my body" discourse as recounted in the Gospels and the epistles are more dealing with spiritual significance than anything else (and I realize Catholicism and Orthodoxy differ in this belief from post-16th century Christian sects). He does not speak about this bread/wine as he does parables. While Jesus makes other statements such as "I am the door", he never makes the inverse claim that "this door is me". It is also a concept expounded on by the epistle writers, as well as the church fathers that were alive at the time the Gospels were written. It also flows richly with the Hebrew belief in a need for sacrifice, with the idea that Jesus is the perfect sacrifice after which no others are necessary, and with the idea that we must participate in this sacrifice.

So yeah, sometimes what we decide is literal can be a bit arbitrary. But, that's how faith goes.

I have a question:

You accept that God is all-powerful and omnicient;
You accept that He created everyone;
therefore, God knew what we would do before he created us. He could have made us differently, but chose not to. Why, then, is He so seemingly intent on punishing evildoers, when he specifically created them that way?

I'm interested in knowing how free will fits in with God's omnicience, in other words. It would seem that either free will doesn't exist or God is not all-powerful.

Another Catholic can correct me if I'm wrong on our take on this.

One version of this answer is easy: we believe that the Church councils, like the apostles before them, are guided by God when they decide on specific matters of faith (i.e. "dogma"). Usually they won't say specifically which parts of the Bible are literal... even that news article that keeps popping up on these threads (the one that lists which verses the Church decided were literal) does not cite any official dogma; that list is just a number of guesses. The Church only authoritatively states whether a verse is literal whenever it's a specific concern of faith, such as the belief that Christ REALLY died and rose from the dead.

But on what do those councils base their authority? On the bible? If so, how can you tell wether these passages are meant to be taken literal?

Besides, wouldn't that mean that you base your belief on something that others tell you to believe?


The other version of this answer is tricker: the Bible is only 100% accurate in regards to theology and God's nature, not with regards to science or even history. I mean, there are two conflicting creation stories! Still, even if they don't literally detail the physical process, they literally detail the way God went about it.

But how do you come to that conclusion? Does the Bible itself say, that it is only accurate on theological content?

Besides, wouldn't that mean, that the interpretation of the Bible is dependent on the discoveries of science?

I have a question:

You accept that God is all-powerful and omnicient;
You accept that He created everyone;
therefore, God knew what we would do before he created us. He could have made us differently, but chose not to. Why, then, is He so seemingly intent on punishing evildoers, when he specifically created them that way?

I'm interested in knowing how free will fits in with God's omnicience, in other words. It would seem that either free will doesn't exist or God is not all-powerful.

God, being all-powerful, created each person so that that person could potentially choose good or evil. God could have made it so that every person chose good, but he for some reason wanted us to have free will.

God, being omniscient, knows whether each person will be good or evil. He still allows that person to choose.

So, free will and omniscience can coexist.

God, being all-powerful, created each person so that that person could potentially choose good or evil. God could have made it so that every person chose good, but he for some reason wanted us to have free will.

God, being omniscient, knows whether each person will be good or evil. He still allows that person to choose.

So, free will and omniscience can coexist.

Simple, It's like one really long drama series...

"Stay tuned for scenes from Earth: 2006"

But on what do those councils base their authority? On the bible? If so, how can you tell wether these passages are meant to be taken literal?

This is one of those answers in which you'll get widely different responses from different denominations. In Catholicism, the inverse of your question is true. Our faith in the Bible is based on the apostolic succession. We believe that those books were written through God and that these divinely-inspired books were chosen through God's inspiration of the councils who decided them. In this way, you might say that we not only believe the Bible is divinely inspired; we believe that its table of contents is also divinely inspired.

Authority of the councils/apostolic succession is based on their continuity with early Christians who knew Jesus. Other documents written by Christians who lived at the time of Jesus's apostles coincide with many of these ideas. When the apostles died, these documents still kept the same flavor. When Constantine demanded Christians find a belief and stick to it, the majority of them went with the Trinitarian one which Catholics, Orthodexes, and Protestants hold to today, and which had already been described by those who knew the apostles who in turn followed Jesus.

Yes, it is convenient that we pull a lot of things from a series of books that we happened to decide was divinely authoritative. Still, I think that fact that the books were written so long before the councils, and the councils and those books share beliefs, attests to something.

But, all in all, religion is faith-based. At some point the decision does come to something "feeling right". It's just nice if that isn't your only criteria.

But how do you come to that conclusion? Does the Bible itself say, that it is only accurate on theological content?

Besides, wouldn't that mean, that the interpretation of the Bible is dependent on the discoveries of science?

The discoveries of science might invalidate a physically-literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but Genesis 2 also invalidates a physically-literal interpretation of it. The author of Genesis clearly foresaw this, so it must all mean something greater if it was meant to be taken seriously even in the context of the times.

Belief that Christ died for our sins, rose, and ascended into heaven does not depend on science. I suppose if someone claimed to have irrefutable proof that Jesus of Nazareth never died of crucifixion, then we'd have a crisis in which to consider dropping our beliefs or defend them. It's kind of the crux of our faith, pardon the pun ;) .

Maybe if these DaVinci Coders ever found this "irrefutable proof" that Jesus had Mary Magdalene as a wife, and decided not to leave it buried for inexplicable reasons, then we'd have problems. For now, however, the main argument seems to be that the early church tried to suppress the role of women in Christianity. To that I say: whatever. Tell me about it after I finish my Ave Marias.

How would you know the Bible is true? There is tons upon tons of the Bible for which it seems you just have to accept the Bibles word for it such as the virgian birth. I mean who went in and checked for cherry? Many minor story elements also are near impossable to confirm. It is kinda like Kevin's new health care conspiricy book. If there is a health care cover up how did he uncover it. If he did uncover it why isn't he dead. As in the Bible there are many claims to which there seams to be no reliable source.

Also as Christians have you ever actually researched the Jesus prophecies. I have looked at a few. After I had found enough bad ones I wrote off the rest. All the prophecies I looked at where either incompletly fulfilled, misquoted, taken out of context, or what have you. It is the Jesus prophecies that cuased me to lose my faith. I'm wondering if you have ever taken the time to look at them.

I have a question. Do you believe that you understand God's true will and nature?

God, being all-powerful, created each person so that that person could potentially choose good or evil. God could have made it so that every person chose good, but he for some reason wanted us to have free will.

God, being omniscient, knows whether each person will be good or evil. He still allows that person to choose.

So, free will and omniscience can coexist.But, seeing as how the end result is the same, is it 'real' free choice, or just an illusion?

He decided our natures, right? He chose to make us in such a way knowing the end result would be burning in hell or whatever?

If your Church can provide any serious evidence for anything that the Book of Mormon claims I will be greatly suprised. To date you have zero archaeological evidence for any events described in the Book of Mormon. Please Explain.

I also have a a problem with the fact that you say the Bible has been translated "wrong" over the years but you still quote it as being scripture. Please Explain.

We have scriptural evidence. In John 10:16, Christ reveals his intent to visit "other sheep," which can include Asians, Native Americans, the lost tribes of Israel, etc. There's also more elsewhere in Isaiah, Revelations, and other books, but I can't be bothered to look them up.
I did not mean to give the impression that we think the entire Bible is wrong (sorry if I did). What I meant to communicate is that parts have been mistranslated, and that the Book of Mormon is intended not as a standalone book, but rather a clarification of what has been removed/changed from the Bible.

I see this turning into a flame war. I suggest cooling things down in the forums. If you want to continue our conversation, send me a telegram.

At Dollar Duz It, any Biblical scholar knows that.
Denarius Duz It. Come on, man, know your biblical units.:p

Firstly, I would like to make it clear that this is not an apologetics thread. We are not arguing whether or not the Bible etc is true. I am just here to answer questions about why Christians believe what they believe.

So, ask a Chrisitan (Me) about why I believe what I believe

A few biographical details

Age: 18
Occupation: Student of international relations and politics
Location: Originally from Croydon, now studying in Canterbury
Denomination: Born again
Church: Oakhall church (I only state this in case some people have heard of the holiday company), Dennmark hall, Barton Evangelical.
Favourite Bible verse: Romans 8:31

Is 'Born Again' a denomination? I thought it just meant you were a convert. :confused:

Olara']Denarius Duz It. Come on, man, know your biblical units.:p

Surely the plural of Denari is Denarii? (pronounced den-ar-ree-i)
I'm deeply shocked.:p

Denomination: Mormon

Is Mormons are a bunch of Christian fundamentalist who believe one guy can have multiple wives???

Surely the plural of Denari is Denarii? (pronounced den-ar-ree-i)
I'm deeply shocked.:p
He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
See, the singular is denarius, the plural would probably be denarii.

God, being all-powerful, created each person so that that person could potentially choose good or evil. God could have made it so that every person chose good, but he for some reason wanted us to have free will.

God, being omniscient, knows whether each person will be good or evil. He still allows that person to choose.

So, free will and omniscience can coexist.


That creates a minor problem. While free will and omniscience can easily coexist, they cannot if you consider god to be inherantly benevolent. Creating people and situations that leads to the inhumanity man so often displays to man would be something that god is directly responsible for. Refusing to prevent the killing fields in Cambodia when you have the power is not a moral act, but it becomes even more immoral when you were the one who set the stage in the first place. The only ways around this particular problem is to assume that either :

a) God is not good. This does not mean that God is evil. God could easily be unconcerned (a popular theory among Diests in the 18th century) or clinically detached (this would be an amoral God as opposed to an immoral God).

b) God is not all powerful. In this scenario, God is good, but lacks the power to prevent evil. Clearly this cannot be the case, as a God capable of creating an entire universe would need a level of power that approaches omnipotence, which would make a bit of moral fine-tuning a breeze.

c) God is evil. While assuming that God is evil is tempting, it doesn't really stand up to close examination. A world in which God is evil has the same problems as a world in which God is good, namely, the world is not a terrible place for everyone. Life could be alot worse for the vast majority of people, and an evil/sadistic God would need relatively little power to make it so.

d) God does not exist. This theory is functionally similar to "a." The only real difference is that if there is no God theres no reason for existance, and for many thats even scarier than an absentee God.

e) We simply lack the ability to understand God's Will. The old standby, blind faith. I've always hated this explaination. Why would a God give us all the faculty of reason only to put the one important question out of our reach? More specifically, it is not hard to read the eating of fruit from the Tree of Knowledge as man wresting that forbidden understanding from God. In fact, thats the most logical reading of that particular parable.


So yeah, theres your five options to explain the disparity between a Benevolent diety and our world. Comments, concerns, criticisms, great thoughts?





*Goes back to listening to Windir*


93
93/93

We have scriptural evidence. In John 10:16, Christ reveals his intent to visit "other sheep," which can include Asians, Native Americans, the lost tribes of Israel, etc. There's also more elsewhere in Isaiah, Revelations, and other books, but I can't be bothered to look them up.
I did not mean to give the impression that we think the entire Bible is wrong (sorry if I did). What I meant to communicate is that parts have been mistranslated, and that the Book of Mormon is intended not as a standalone book, but rather a clarification of what has been removed/changed from the Bible.

I see this turning into a flame war. I suggest cooling things down in the forums. If you want to continue our conversation, send me a telegram.
Well, now, in John 10:16, he says nothing about "visiting" anyone, just that he will "bring" more because they will "listen to [his] voice." Couldn't that mean that more people (ie, other than the twelve) be called?

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Is 'Born Again' a denomination? I thought it just meant you were a convert. :confused:


It also applies to the more ardent evangelical strain of Christianity that first started to show up in the united states during the Second Great Awakening.


93
93/93

Also as Christians have you ever actually researched the Jesus prophecies. I have looked at a few. After I had found enough bad ones I wrote off the rest. All the prophecies I looked at where either incompletly fulfilled, misquoted, taken out of context, or what have you. It is the Jesus prophecies that cuased me to lose my faith. I'm wondering if you have ever taken the time to look at them.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Could you elaborate with specific prophecies?

I have a question. Do you believe that you understand God's true will and nature?

No. I believe that he inspires the Church, though, in matters of belief. In a sense, I believe that He has revealed His true will and nature, but we only partially understand it thus far.

But, seeing as how the end result is the same, is it 'real' free choice, or just an illusion?
He decided our natures, right? He chose to make us in such a way knowing the end result would be burning in hell or whatever?

In designing our natures, He made it possible for us to decide either way. Someone with omniscience could flip a coin and know which way it would end up, without directly controlling it. Our life decisions aren't made by sheer luck, but the analogy emphasizes the difference between foreknowledge and influence.

A Calvinist would disagree, of course.

(list of options)

In my opinion, the answer would be "e" combined with a plea of "greater pattern" benevolence, which is not an option on your list. One of your premises is:

While free will and omniscience can easily coexist, they cannot if you consider god to be inherantly benevolent. Creating people and situations that leads to the inhumanity man so often displays to man would be something that god is directly responsible for.

I believe that there's something necessary in separating the "wheat from the chaff", so to speak. I also believe that suffering can yield positive benefits, both in this life and in the next.
Yeah, I know. I say that with the perspective of someone who's had a ridiculously easy existance. Part of my belief also includes it being a whole lot harder for me to prove a "worthy servant" than people who suffer for Christ, or even positive morals that fall within Christ's teaching (after all, the new law is written on all of our hearts). So yes, I do need to step it up quite a few notches.

I see this turning into a flame war. I suggest cooling things down in the forums. If you want to continue our conversation, send me a telegram.

I may telegram you later, Ninja Revelry, particularly on our doctrinal differences concerning the apocalyptic struggle between ninjas and pirates.

--- Snip ---
Why disregard the "God is not all-powerful" argument so easily? Programmers regularly produce stuff they can't necessarily tweak with ease. Who knows; creation could be a hardware-based self-solving problem. I presume you've heard about the machine that was told to create a sine wave-pattern by its own devices, did so incredibly efficiently in a few hours and it took the creators days to figure out it was basing it off a set of radio signals.

Then again, the other area that particular statement falls down is that you assume the origin of creation and the dominant spirit are one and the same. Perhaps the guiding spirit is not the source of the universe's existence. In which case, its powers could very easily be limited by its confines within reality.

I'd like to append a Sixth, if I may. God is Good, but he is not the creator, nor is he all-powerful. What is referred to in Christian circles as the Holy Spirit is God in his entirety. His power is restricted to persuasion of those things that have self-awareness. He speaks to people in a way that makes them pay attention to him; often by fulfilling their prejudices of him. This way, he can accomplish prayer requests that can be done through guiding the will of others. People can, of course, refuse or simply fail to listen, or misinterpret what is said, and there's nothing God can do about it but try a few other people who might be able to help. Hence, divine inspiration.


Question to the Christians; is the above an acceptable view of God? Wouldn't you agree that assuming Jesus's own view of God agrees with yours depends a lot on St Paul's interpretation and St John's memory some 60 years after the event (arguably very strongly influenced by Paul too)?

In designing our natures, He made it possible for us to decide either way. Someone with omniscience could flip a coin and know which way it would end up, without directly controlling it. Our life decisions aren't made by sheer luck, but the analogy emphasizes the difference between foreknowledge and influence.Still, acknowledging that he is the creator of everything and omnicient would rule out luck, wouldn't it? He'd be the engineer of everything. He would not be able to 'flip a coin' because there is nothing that is outside of himself, so to speak. He could not escape his own nature any more than we can ours..

Is 'Born Again' a denomination? I thought it just meant you were a convert. :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-again_Christian

Favorite QuoteSong of solomon Chapter4 vs 2 Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which
came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.

That or

Song of Solomon 4:16 # Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden,
that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits. . psst she is geting eaten out :) (at least thats what I take from it)

Olara']See, the singular is denarius, the plural would probably be denarii.

Damn, foiled again....:headbang:

I would like to know, simply:

Before any 'special experience with God' or 'divinity' or whatever...why on Earth did you believe the Bible in the first place?

With all due respect.

I would like to know, simply:

Before any 'special experience with God' or 'divinity' or whatever...why on Earth did you believe the Bible in the first place?

With all due respect.
I actually had my special experience with God before I believed the Bible. In fact, it led me to believe the Bible.

Olara']I actually had my special experience with God before I believed the Bible. In fact, it led me to believe the Bible.
...And?

...And?
Well, your question as I read it was "Why did you believe the Bible before you had any special experience with God?" I'm telling you I didn't.

Still makes no sense...what I mean is, you had this apparent experience with God, whaat led you to decide that it was the Christian God, and what leads you to believe everything in the Bible? A big book that unjustifiedly says this or that is an abomination doesn't sound too trustworthy. But that's just me.

Still makes no sense...what I mean is, you had this apparent experience with God, whaat led you to decide that it was the Christian God, and what leads you to believe everything in the Bible? A big book that unjustifiedly says this or that is an abomination doesn't sound too trustworthy. But that's just me.
The nature of the experience led me to believe it was the god to which Christians pray. And my continued experiences with God have led me to believe the trustworthiness of the Bible. I'm not asking for it to make sense to you; God will work in your life differently than he works in mine because we're different people. You had a question, I had an answer. That's all.

Okay. Fair enough. I respect that. Thank you :)

Another question (or rather, a clarification of my original intent in the previous one): How do you justify everything that the Bible claims is wrong? And, while I'm here, how in the world do you justify the concept of eternal damnation?

Okay. Fair enough. I respect that. Thank you :)

Another question (or rather, a clarification of my original intent in the previous one): How do you justify everything that the Bible claims is wrong? And, while I'm here, how in the world do you justify the concept of eternal damnation?
Easy one.

Human plugins to the God browser.

Olara']The nature of the experience led me to believe it was the god to which Christians pray. And my continued experiences with God have led me to believe the trustworthiness of the Bible. I'm not asking for it to make sense to you; God will work in your life differently than he works in mine because we're different people. You had a question, I had an answer. That's all.
I would argue we worship the same god. Christianity claims mine is invalid, and that it will somehow make sense when I discover what's wrong. But if in my deduction, my god is the same as yours, how can I discover what's wrong about it? Or, to put it another way, how can I convert to believing in a God I already believe in?

If your Church can provide any serious evidence for anything that the Book of Mormon claims I will be greatly suprised. To date you have zero archaeological evidence for any events described in the Book of Mormon. Please Explain.

I also have a a problem with the fact that you say the Bible has been translated "wrong" over the years but you still quote it as being scripture. Please Explain.
I was considering starting a new thread just for Christians to address issues like this but since it is in the open now I will just go ahead and deal.

NO mormonism is not a true Christian faith and having studied it I have come to believe that it is just the opposite. One of the unchanged main points of mormonism is that when you are resurrected that you will join the "council of gods" and be free to create your own planets and populate it with your children, I will say that I have run into some stakes that don't follow this belief but they are in the minority. Isn't this stating that you get to do what Lucifer was cast out of Heaven for trying to do? By running comparison to Christian beliefs I have come to the conclusion, and I know this will piss of the more active and aggressive amongst you, that mormonism is the True satanism. Now before you get all huffy know this:
1. I have mormon friends.
2. I have momon family.
3. I have dated a mormon.
4. One of the 2 sets of Godparents for my oldest son is a mormon family.
5. I believe that the everyday mormon is a good person and wishes to do good in the community, for their own reasons.
6. I have never withheld my view on the church from any of them.
7. I am willing to discuss, rationally, my views with any mormon including the missionaries in our neighborhood.
8. The deacons of several stakes have blackballed me and forbidden their missionaries from discussions with me while also refusing contact with me.
9. I am willing to help said mormon missionaries out with lifts, drinks, meals and such, particularly on overwhelmingly hot or cold days.
Just because I don't share their blind faith in their religion does not relegate their willingness to believe in something to pointless if it leads them to lead a better life and aid in the improvement of society. This does not, however, mean that their immortal souls are safe nor guaranteed to gain access to Heaven. I and most other real Christians, not just those using the name, are tolerant of other's beliefs but this does not meant that we will sit by and allow us to be persecuted for our beliefs without letting it be know what it is we really stand for. And in partial answer to some of the Catholics out there. It is believed by the moromon church that the Bible has been polluted by the Catholic Church and therefore it can not be trusted. My response to comments made about the book of mormon being a "revelation direct from God" is Bullsh#@!!! Smith, the horsethief and suspected killer, stuck his head in a hat with a bunch of rocks and "read" from them the new holy scriptures!??! Not to mention the page of revelation that lead to the book "pearl of great value" (the exact name is escaping me for some reason) turns out to be nothing more than a page from the book of the dead buried with the dead in Egypt and transplnated to North America as part of a stolen treasure from a looted tomb? (no the mormons at that time had nothing to do with the looting of the tomb) So how does a simple page with only 3/4 of the original writting in one form of writting and the rest filled in with another foreign form, and upside down to boot, translate into and entire book of revelation to a religion not even remotely connected to the original belief system? I could go on for hours but then no one would read this since it would be miles too long to publish.

Okay. Fair enough. I respect that. Thank you :)

Another question (or rather, a clarification of my original intent in the previous one): How do you justify everything that the Bible claims is wrong? And, while I'm here, how in the world do you justify the concept of eternal damnation?
How do we justify the punishment fitting the crime in any event?

-Snip-
Irrelevance. Anyone whose faith is centered around afterlife is after the same thing: Self preservation. If your fierce disagreement with this group is based on their views on what happens after death, it shows just where your own motives lie.

What the Mormons believe about afterlife has no impact on their status as Christians.

So maybe the Mormons have a few extra books. Maybe they're rather Americist. Big deal. They're no worse than the typical Paulite Evangelicals; in fact, at least they have come to grips with the humanity of their sources. The underlying message is the same: Do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with your God. As long as that sticks, they're as valid as you are, bub.

What I mean is, how can you justify saying "You have to do this, this, and this in life, and if you don't you must undergo eternal pain and torture"? How is that in any way...just?

What I mean is, how can you justify saying "You have to do this, this, and this in life, and if you don't you must undergo eternal pain and torture"? How is that in any way...just?
I personally don't. Nor, in my experience, do most non-evangelical christians. You justify the statement having been said by attributing it to human misinterpretation, and its presence in the bible as being an offshoot of Paul who explains Jesus in a way that happens to work with the Christian Church. The actual eternal suffering is only alluded to by Jesus in the sense that people who sin inevitably lead miserable, soulless existences, which is simply a statement of fact rather than a damnation.

jefflindsay.com it explains a whole lot of what you want to know. also LDS.org

I said this before, and I'll say it again. I'm not arguing in this forum any more. If you want to talk to me about this subject, wire me a telegram. Oh, by the way, if you use Southpark as a source like Telepathic Banshees did, you will be immediately blocked. Southpark is a cartoon, not a legitamte source of Mormon doctrine.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml no arguments here, just a whole page with evedence

What I mean is, how can you justify saying "You have to do this, this, and this in life, and if you don't you must undergo eternal pain and torture"? How is that in any way...just?

See here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html

Eh...

I read it, and I still agree with the story about "I love you, love me in return or be tortured by crazy cousin Zeke"

Still makes no sense.

Ask a Christian
Okay.
What do you think of Pat Robertson's continued statements where he connects christianity to political decisions (as for example the one discussed in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453395)). Should religion enter politics in this way?

See here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html
I'd tend to agree with Jennislore on that one.

Basically, the idea is that Christians believe in Hell. They will act based on a genuine concern that you'll wind up there. Which is nice enough of them in concept, of course, even if it does throw a spanner into the works with regards to God's essence.

The simple fact is that Hell is incompatible with a benevolent and omnipotent God. It is not, however, incompatible with a benevolent God if you assume that it is not the creator of Hell and the devices through which souls go there, and it is also compatible with an omnipotent God if you assume he has a slight assholish tendency.

Being as it is, we factor out the latter option and assume that either Hell is fiction, and Jesus was referring to a state of mind when he referred to the chasm but that God nonetheless has infinate power, that Hell is Truth and God may not be capable of solving it, or that hell is fiction and God is of dubious potency anyway, but of sound mind and good spirit.

I vote for the latter, personally. It seems the most consistent.

Matthew 5:10 Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

You go, Avalon.

I do hate to bring this up, but that only applies if Avalon is righteous, which is, to say the least, tricky to tell over the Internet.

Number III

i was sitting in a chair,
looking here and there,
when a stranger knelt down,
the stranger said, "hey, whats with the frown?"
"im trying to understand the riddle of life," i replied,
"how do i know theres something after we've died?"
"we dont, its faith," the stranger told me,
"we live and die and that only,
god gave us a gift of life,
devote your soul to god and see the afterlife,"
"but which god?" i asked the stanger,
"why do you beleive in a baby born in a manger?"
"simple," the stanger began,
"it comes to faith again,"
so i said, "but many put faith in different gods,
so how do you say, 'this one is true and the others frauds?'"
the stranger said, "we have gods word,
and gets spread by those who've heard,"
again i said, "but many have declared words from gods,
so how do you say, 'this one is true and the others frauds?'"
"the real god reveals his true nature," said the stranger,
"oh," i began, "but thats not solid thinking, thats the danger,
if god could reveal the truth to all,
why do so many fail to follow the call?"
"well," he said, "they refuse that which god reveals,"
"that cant be right," i responded, "many dont beleive god is even real,"
"Thats because they dont see the truth that lies before them," the stranger said in anger,
"but couldnt god give them eyes that will see the truth," i replied back to the stranger,
"yes, god can, but god lets us decide ourselves, because we have free will," he replied,
then i said, "so you think god gives us all we need to decide?"
the stranger said, "yes i do,"
i responded by saying, "well let me say something, then tell me what you would do,
a person is in a room,
a note lies before him saying, 'one door leads to heaven, the rest to doom,'
the person looks left and sees a hallway so far he cant see its end,
then to the right and sees the same with no end,
thousands of doors line the hall,
all these doors and only one to call,
'how do i find the right door?' the person says,
he looks behind and sees a table,
its filled with books of stories and fable,
another note lays on top,
it reads, 'pick a book and follow to the door it says and knock,
you get one chance to find the right door,
if you fail you will be no more,'
now, what does the person do?
how does he determine which way is true?"
the stranger i do beleive turned blue,
"pull up a chair," i said, "sit down and think it through,
lets think about what to do."

I do hate to bring this up, but that only applies if Avalon is righteous, which is, to say the least, tricky to tell over the Internet.

Number III

I merely meant that I knew Avalon would catch a lot of flack for putting himself out there like that, and that the atheists and agnostics would undoubtedly come after him. Assuming they did, he would be persecuted in a sense. How he dealt with it would go toward whether he is blessed or not. Only God would know for sure if he would be that for certain.
I just know from personal experience what it is like to put that target on your back in these forums and take it without resorting to their rhetoric.

If your Church can provide any serious evidence for anything that the Book of Mormon claims I will be greatly suprised. To date you have zero archaeological evidence for any events described in the Book of Mormon. Please Explain.

I also have a a problem with the fact that you say the Bible has been translated "wrong" over the years but you still quote it as being scripture. Please Explain.
How much archeological evidence is there for the existence of Jesus, exactly?

I'm surprised that you're believing shit based on no actual evidence yet you demand it of someone else.

One of my little pet-peeves is people who believe god is omniscient. I’ll even give an example from the bible. He gives orders to satan to tempt Job. If he knew what Job would do, then all the things he did to him were just plain mean. One might make the argument that he wanted to prove something to satan, but why should an all powerful being care what one of his servants thought? It seems that you would have to believe one of two things: That god is either not all-knowing or he’s just a bastard. Of course, it’s a moot point since he doesn’t exist.

I believe that there's something necessary in separating the "wheat from the chaff", so to speak. I also believe that suffering can yield positive benefits, both in this life and in the next.
Yeah, I know. I say that with the perspective of someone who's had a ridiculously easy existance. Part of my belief also includes it being a whole lot harder for me to prove a "worthy servant" than people who suffer for Christ, or even positive morals that fall within Christ's teaching (after all, the new law is written on all of our hearts). So yes, I do need to step it up quite a few notches.

Take this for what it is, the slightly bitter view of someone who lost his faith a long time ago, but the whole concept of God creating suffering to make us stronger sickens me. It reeks of something the powerful tell the weak to keep them from rioting. Now its true, suffering can make an individual stronger, but it can also destory them. Tell me, what good comes from a genocide or a natural disaster? Does it in any way outweigh the bad? Rarely. Suffering never leaves you intact, and usually if you come out stronger you're also alot harder, colder, meaner. In a strictly darwinin sense, yeah, thats separating the wheat from the chaff, but the meek don't last long when its survival of the fittest.


note: I'm not interested in an evolution debate, please don't construe my post as a challenge for one, yadda yadda yadda.


93
93/93

Why disregard the "God is not all-powerful" argument so easily? Programmers regularly produce stuff they can't necessarily tweak with ease. Who knows; creation could be a hardware-based self-solving problem. I presume you've heard about the machine that was told to create a sine wave-pattern by its own devices, did so incredibly efficiently in a few hours and it took the creators days to figure out it was basing it off a set of radio signals.


That is a definate possability, but it is clearly not the Christian or Muslim god. Monotheism requires omnipotence and it is a culturally accepted fact. Sure, there are hersies that have abandoned the concept of an omnipotent god, but they are in an extreme minority. If you ask a monotheist to define God, one of those definitions is always omnipotence.

Then again, the other area that particular statement falls down is that you assume the origin of creation and the dominant spirit are one and the same. Perhaps the guiding spirit is not the source of the universe's existence. In which case, its powers could very easily be limited by its confines within reality.


An interesting theory, but again, this does not come to the issue of a monotheistic God. My post was directed specifically to a monothesitic culture. Other possabilities exist, but they aren't exactly on topic. A limited God doesn't exactly interest me as a subject of worship (except in a very select case).

I'd like to append a Sixth, if I may. God is Good, but he is not the creator, nor is he all-powerful. What is referred to in Christian circles as the Holy Spirit is God in his entirety. His power is restricted to persuasion of those things that have self-awareness. He speaks to people in a way that makes them pay attention to him; often by fulfilling their prejudices of him. This way, he can accomplish prayer requests that can be done through guiding the will of others. People can, of course, refuse or simply fail to listen, or misinterpret what is said, and there's nothing God can do about it but try a few other people who might be able to help. Hence, divine inspiration.


Again, not a god worthy of veneration in my eyes. Possable, sure, but it is not the generally accepted form of a monotheistic god in western society.

Question to the Christians; is the above an acceptable view of God? Wouldn't you agree that assuming Jesus's own view of God agrees with yours depends a lot on St Paul's interpretation and St John's memory some 60 years after the event (arguably very strongly influenced by Paul too)?

Christians have more to work on than Jesus. They also have the Old Testament. OT is pretty clear, God is not only all-powerful, but He doesn't hesitate to crush those who challenge him.

I would like to know, simply:

Before any 'special experience with God' or 'divinity' or whatever...why on Earth did you believe the Bible in the first place?

With all due respect.

For the same reason anyone believes anything. Why do you believe your father is your father? Have you ever done a paternity test? Likely not. You believe because people you trust have told you it was the truth. "Special experiances" can shore up that faith, but the core is still the same.

Okay. Fair enough. I respect that. Thank you :)

Another question (or rather, a clarification of my original intent in the previous one): How do you justify everything that the Bible claims is wrong? And, while I'm here, how in the world do you justify the concept of eternal damnation?


Its easy to look at damnation as something terrible in our society, especially with the lovely-dovey views about Christianity that have grown so popular. Fact of the matter is, if you read OT, God isn't a nice guy, he is a paternalistic authority figure with a mean streak. You do not follow out of love, but out of fear. Hell, in proverbs theres even the line "Fear is the beginning of all wisdom" (1:9). Now me, I'm stubborn and spiteful and I read Milton as an inspiration, not a cautionary tale, but you need to understand the context of Chrisitanity. This is a religion of slaves. First as jews, then as second class citizens in Rome, and eventually as serfs and peasants in Europe. The people who shaped the faith over the years had a vested interest in keep the weak weak and the strong strong. Even if you believe that every interpretation and council was inspired by God, you cannot believe that every king who welcomed the church did so out of some religious awakening. Even Constantine had the Gnostics and Mithraic cults to worry about...


93
93/93

What I mean is, how can you justify saying "You have to do this, this, and this in life, and if you don't you must undergo eternal pain and torture"? How is that in any way...just?


Who says it needs to be about justice? This isn't a constitutional democracy it is a despotism. God makes the rules, you follow. If you don't he makes bad things happen to you. If you believe in it, then justice doesn't play a part.


93
93/93

Okay.
What do you think of Pat Robertson's continued statements where he connects christianity to political decisions (as for example the one discussed in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453395)). Should religion enter politics in this way?


Only if his church is willing to give up it's tax-exempt status. Religion in politics always looks like trying to seve God by serving Mammon to me.

Oh, and no, I'm not advocating limiting anyone's constitutional rights. I'm just saying that if you want to be outside of the constitution, you have to be outside it.


93
93/93

I'd tend to agree with Jennislore on that one.

Basically, the idea is that Christians believe in Hell. They will act based on a genuine concern that you'll wind up there. Which is nice enough of them in concept, of course, even if it does throw a spanner into the works with regards to God's essence.

The simple fact is that Hell is incompatible with a benevolent and omnipotent God. It is not, however, incompatible with a benevolent God if you assume that it is not the creator of Hell and the devices through which souls go there, and it is also compatible with an omnipotent God if you assume he has a slight assholish tendency.

Being as it is, we factor out the latter option and assume that either Hell is fiction, and Jesus was referring to a state of mind when he referred to the chasm but that God nonetheless has infinate power, that Hell is Truth and God may not be capable of solving it, or that hell is fiction and God is of dubious potency anyway, but of sound mind and good spirit.

I vote for the latter, personally. It seems the most consistent.


You love the latter because it feels better. You get to do what you want without consequences, cherry pick whatever feels good. Its easier to imagine that no one has that power over you. Its not "consistant" in any way, just conveniant. Not that I'm against going with whatever works, I'm a big fan of it, I'd just rather you be up front about it. Thats always been my peeve with new age and fluffy bunny types, its the dishonesty and the denial.


93
93/93

For the same reason anyone believes anything. Why do you believe your father is your father? Have you ever done a paternity test? Likely not. You believe because people you trust have told you it was the truth. "Special experiances" can shore up that faith, but the core is still the same.
I believe my father is my father because I look like him, I act like him, I think like him, I inherited most of my traits from his family, but the main traits were the ones that, out of his family, only he had. Of course, he could always not be my father; but to me that is no matter, because he brought me up, so therefore I will consider him my father whether or not he is my biological parent. That wasn't too good a comparison.

So what makes you believe it, I ask again?

I am not fluffy. I think that life is tough, people die, people die a LOT, but that's the way life works. I don't think we're going to be punished for anything. And anyway, if God gave me a good (though rolandically epileptic, at times) brain and a personality and a near-genius IQ, and with my good brain and my personality and my IQ I have decided that God does not exist, then how can he punish me for that? Another way to look at it is if you believe homosexuality is a sin, well, I was born gay, it's programmed into my brain, so did God create me with eternal damnation in mind? That's not too Divine Being-like.


On the topic of justice: if heaven vs. hell is our just rewards/punishment, then 'justice' of some form is involved, even if the basis itself is unfair. So why do you believe it? And isn't God supposedly=Love?

I'd like to explain the Jesus Prophecies.

If you look here http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html You will find a few.

The Jesus Prophecies are the Old Testament prophecies Jesus is said to have fulfilled. Thing is although there are many Old Testament prophecies Jesus is claimed to have fulfilled I have never found a single legitimate one.

I will take one example. Isaiah 7:14 and it's supposed fulfillment in Luke 1:26-27, 30-31 Now read the prophecy the whole prophecy. If you can't tell this is a illegitimate prophecy than you obviously didn't read the prophecy.

I believe my father is my father because I look like him, I act like him, I think like him, I inherited most of my traits from his family, but the main traits were the ones that, out of his family, only he had. Of course, he could always not be my father; but to me that is no matter, because he brought me up, so therefore I will consider him my father whether or not he is my biological parent. That wasn't too good a comparison.

So what makes you believe it, I ask again?

I am not fluffy. I think that life is tough, people die, people die a LOT, but that's the way life works. I don't think we're going to be punished for anything. And anyway, if God gave me a good (though rolandically epileptic, at times) brain and a personality and a near-genius IQ, and with my good brain and my personality and my IQ I have decided that God does not exist, then how can he punish me for that? Another way to look at it is if you believe homosexuality is a sin, well, I was born gay, it's programmed into my brain, so did God create me with eternal damnation in mind? That's not too Divine Being-like.


On the topic of justice: if heaven vs. hell is our just rewards/punishment, then 'justice' of some form is involved, even if the basis itself is unfair. So why do you believe it? And isn't God supposedly=Love?


You're defensive, too defensive. You make the mistake of assuming I believe. I used to, but then I came to a point in my life where I had to make a choice, and I chose what was hard and true rather than (what I feel is) a comforting lie. I can't expect everyone to make the same choice and, having been in their camp, understand why they make the choices they make. Still think they're wrong, but as long as no one infringes on my freedom or life, I've got no real qualms with them.

Now, you might not have liked my analogy, but you're having a problem with forests and trees. The point I was making is that human beings have to develop ways of understanding the world. It is an integral part of our development. Most of the things we "know" we will never actually take the effort to prove, it would make life far too complicated. So we cheat, we believe. Its fast, its easy, and it lets us build on and improve the work of those who came before us rather than simply repeating the same explorations over and over. Now, for many people the time comes when we question things, but the fact of the matter is, the default for most people in America is a belief in Christianity. Some people have no desire/reason/Will to dig deeper. Some dig and find what they consider proof. Who am I (or you) to question it? Generally, it neither fills my purse nor picks my pocket so I couldn't care less. When that chages, well, thats when conflicts occur.

As for you considering your father to be your father because he brought you up, thats a whole different issue. Thats defining your reality by your own will, and while I'm a big fan, thats a topic for a VERY different thread.

When it comes to being all "Divine Being-like" one of the perks of being a God is being able to make all the definitions. If God is real, and he believes homosexuality is a sin, and he makes sinners burn, well, then you're screwed. Its not fair, it sure as hell isn't just, but God makes the rules, he holds all the cards. Granted, I don't believe thats the case. If it is, well, all I can do is raise a middle finger and curse the unjust bastard.

93
93/93

How much archeological evidence is there for the existence of Jesus, exactly?

I'm surprised that you're believing shit based on no actual evidence yet you demand it of someone else.

Archaeological Evidence that Jesus ever existed. There is no doubt that Jesus existed. There are numerous Jewish sources that refer to Jesus as well as Roman Sources that make reference to Jesus. I am suprised that any educated person could seriously doubt that Jesus existed. Also there is arechaeological evidence that other things in the Bible happened and all places described in the Bible actually exist. Does Jerusalem Exist? Did King David rule over Israel? I think there is ample proof that these things actually exist and did happen.

As for the events in the Book of Mormon there is no archaeological or written evidence that any of it happened except for the Book of Mormon itself which was translated by a man who had no education. There was no way he knew the Reformed Egyptian the Golden Plates were supposedly written in and these Golden Plates have apparently disappeared. It's a little suspicious and you'd think by 2005 we would have found at least something that would indicate that any of the events in the Book of Mormon actually happened, and there are some pretty major events that happened that should leave archaelogical evidence such as battles massacres of large numbers of people and so on and so forth.