What Evidence Would Make You Believe Again?

[midniterider]

 

I also reject it because the god of the bible is immoral even using god's own measuring rod. 

It is impossible for you to judge the morality of God because you have imperfect knowledge about the circumstances in which God made judgements. He has perfect knowledge. God has complete knowledge when He passes judgement. So in essence when you judge God you are simply claiming to be god, which is irrational.

 

 

 

I personally have more knowledge and power than god because god is just a thought construct and not an independent entity. People like you invent god in their heads.

[midniterider]

 

1 Samuel 15:2,3

 

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

 

 

 

Hosea 13:16

 

16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,

because they have rebelled against their God.

They will fall by the sword;

their little ones will be dashed to the ground,

their pregnant women ripped open."

You should broaden your understanding of history. You stand back thousands of years with out a clue what the world was like or the circumstances of God's judgment.The surrounding pagan societies were with out a doubt evil. This is stated in the Bible multiple times. They engaged in infant and child sacrifice. Plainly you pass judgement with little knowledge in your possession. My point still stands. You are ill-informed and incapable of passing judgment.

 

Archaeological Human Sacrifice Evidence

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/turkeycayonu.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1157784/Do-mysterious-stones-mark-site-Garden-Eden.html

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moabite_stone

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

 

 

Fuck the bible. It is without merit.

[midniterider]

 To claim to have God's knowledge is irrational.

 

 

To pray to non-existent beings like your god is irrational.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

I claim to believe that The Creator of the universe is Holy and good. First, there is evidence the universe was created, and that The Creator was a sentient being and is omnipotent. Second,, by definition The Creator cannot be a demon. Third, if the omnipotent creator were as evil as a demon, then reason would convince me the world would be far, far, far worse than it is today. Salvation through Christ is evidence to me that The Creator is Holy and good.

 

 

Please present this evidence.  As a member of the scientific community, I would like the opportunity to examine it.

 

 

When he says evidence, he means some baloney that popped into his head. See it's a 'different' kind of evidence....it's a kind of non-evidence evidence.

[slave2six]

 

 

 

 

Personally, I do believe the Bible is a valid evidence source and not simply because I'm a Christian.

 

I think it's evidence too. It is evidence that people invented god and gave him all the worst attributes known to the human race. It is evidence that bronze-age people were bloodthirsty savages. It's evidence that people needed a super-human excuse to commit genocide, murder etc.

 

It is decidedly not evidence that there is a god.

 

I agree bronze age people were bloodthirsty savages. Of course, a casual review of history shows us that humanity has been and still is bloodthirsty savages so I'm not sure what your observation tells us.

 

Again, history tells us people do not need a deity to commit genocide. The worst cases of genocide in history are ostensibly not related to any deity.

 

Even if the Bible is 100% true it is not evidence that people invented God. That is a non-sequitur.

 

So far you have been 100% demonstrably wrong.

 

So your final claim is that it is not evidence there is a God. Given your track record in this regard I'm inclined not to believe you. That aside, the truth is that the Bible does provide evidence in the existence of God. It is not scientific evidence, but it is a form of evidence non the less. It is an historical document which , though not universally accepted, provides evidence in the form of prophecy and miracles. It is a form of testimonial evidence.

 

 

What track record would that be?

 

I reject Christianity on its own merits.

 

When you boil Christianity down to its essentials there are only two things in the Bible that are absolutely required:

 

1. The Fall of Man (Adam and Eve committed "original sin" in the Garden of Eden and doomed all future humans)

 

2. The Cross (the incarnation, death and resurrection; the remedy for all sin and the basis to reconcile to god)

 

Everything else is superfluous. Take out any of the Epistles or any of the Old Testament books or accounts and Christianity will stand - provided that you retain The Fall and The Cross. If you remove The Fall of Man story from the Bible, The Cross doesn't make any sense. If you remove The Cross, there is no Christianity.

 

Protestants believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve and that the Fall of Man story is a factual account that occurred around 6,000 years ago just after everything was created in 7 days.

 

The downside to this is that everything that we know about the age of the Earth, how long humans (homo-sapiens) have been around (over 100,000 years), our biological connection to other primates, and in particular the biological aspects of morality make a literal Fall of Man a complete impossibility. There is simply no way around it.

 

The Orthodox view the Fall of Man as an allegory. 

 

The downside to this is that with no literal "Fall" there is no literal "original sin" and therefore no need for a literal redemption. Why would there be a need for a literal cross to amend a fictional account? 

 

I also reject it because both forgiveness and reconciliation require no blood sacrifice. 

 

I also reject it because the god of the bible is immoral even using god's own measuring rod. 

 

Insulting me and my "track record" will not win you points. It only makes you look impotent.

 

Please explain what you believe the "literal fall" to be?

 

 

If you have no mastery of the English language, communication is impossible.

[slave2six]

 

I also reject it because both forgiveness and reconciliation require no blood sacrifice. 

Jesus forgave without blood sacrifice so I don't understand your objection. You need to think beyond anti-Christian cliches when reading the Bible. Judge with an honest heart when you read it.

 

And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

(Mar 2:5)

 

 

 

And yet one cannot "attain to god" except through the blood and body of Christ. How you fail to see the inconsistency (and why you don't recoil in horror that a human sacrifice was ever required) is beyond me. 

[slave2six]

 

I also reject it because the god of the bible is immoral even using god's own measuring rod. 

It is impossible for you to judge the morality of God because you have imperfect knowledge about the circumstances in which God made judgements. He has perfect knowledge. God has complete knowledge when He passes judgement. So in essence when you judge God you are simply claiming to be god, which is irrational.

 

 

 

 

It's idiotic to get involved in disputes about a being that doesn't exist. If you want to justify genocide, that's your issue to work out. I prefer not to be a heinous enabler.

[slave2six]

 

 

I also reject it because the god of the bible is immoral even using god's own measuring rod. 

It is impossible for you to judge the morality of God because you have imperfect knowledge about the circumstances in which God made judgements. He has perfect knowledge. God has complete knowledge when He passes judgement. So in essence when you judge God you are simply claiming to be god, which is irrational.

 

 

 

I personally have more knowledge and power than god because god is just a thought construct and not an independent entity. People like you invent god in their heads.

 

 

Additionally, one cannot say that a human needs god in order to be moral when god does not set anything remotely like a moral example to follow. If one is to follow the actions of the bible god, then Hitler was right, Casey anthony simply had to say "god told me to" and we'd still be stoning gays. Of course, we'd also be stoning false prophets which would thin out the Christian herd considerably.

 

I don't understand the bloodthirsty wankers who defend this religion. 

[hereticzero]

If someone today said they head a talking bush, I would just say I wanted the same shit they were smoking. Having been to Pentacostal churches and seen the mass hysteria invoked through speaking in tongues and visions, it would take more than someone claiming what they said or saw. I think I would be convinced if the almighty popped in from whatever cloud he happened to be reclining and announced to the whole world at the same time his existence. Something more than virgin births and cherubs in the sky.

[RipVanWinkle]

"If a person admits there is no evidence that would convince them otherwise they are

clearly saying that it was not the lack of evidence that convinced them to disbelieve. They are saying evidence has nothing to do with it one way or the other. All the huff

and puff about the Bible not being evidential is all just a distraction for why they

really disbelieve." from Clay

 

Quit playing silly word games. Do you honestly believe that riddict did not look at the

evidence before deciding about his unbelief? That can't be your intellectually honest

interpretation. You think he deconverted based upon faith? The truth is, as you know,

that he examined all the evidence available and deconverted because he no longer

believed there COULD be any more evidence.

 

You,having no evidence, accused him of not considering the evidence. Tell me, what

evidence do you rely upon? The bible is not evidence as to the truth of anything it

says. It's multiple hearsay. The only evidence one can use the bible for is to

prove what it says, not that what it says is true. Same with the Koran. Come on, if you want to argue your position, please do so in an honest way. If you think you are being honest, gawd bless you.

 

But even if riddict did say and mean that no evidence could possibly exist that would

ever have proven to him that god exists,(which he didn't) that's not what anyone else

said. The rest of us are not bound by what one of us may say. Do you concede that? Are you bound by whatever any Xtian says? Then discuss the real issues.

bill

[Bhim]

 

The idea that nothing is knowable is self refuting. If nothing is knowable then your claim nothing is knowable is not knowable.

 

 

There is a set of absolute truths on which reality is based. Finding a sufficient subset of these truths is our job, should we choose to accept it. It's our choice.

 

 

I fully agree that agnosticism (as an epistomological position, not a religious one) is an untenable position.  Yes, there are absolute truths and many of them are certainly knowable to man.  I most certainly do not reject the notion of absolute truth.

 

But here's what I find so interesting about Christians.  Evangelical Christians try very hard to convince others that there is such a thing as truth, and you try even harder to make the case for the existence of a God.  Yet you fail to prove the most central premise of your religion: that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that we will go to an eternal hell unless we believe that he died to save us from sin against God's law.  In order to believe that statement, I have to accept the following presuppositions:

• The notion of a triune God (or at least minimally belief in Pneumatomachianism)
• The existence of Jesus
• The Christian concept of the Messiah (which differs from the Jewish concept)
• The existence of hell
• Eternal concious torment
• That the law of Moses is inspired by God
• The Christian concept of sin and all that it entails

Let me know if there's anything in this list that ought not to be there.  I deliberately did not include belief in the inerrency of the Bible, but I'll happily do so if you like.

 

You guys seem to spend a lot of time convincing us that absolute truth exists, but very little time on specifics.  You take the historicity of the Bible for granted, but I do not grant that premise.  You further assume that Jesus is an appropriate standard of morality, and I do not grant this either (and I do get my morality from a source outside of myself).  Whenever I challenge a Christian on this, they hide behind contrived rules of debate and claim that the discussion at hand is about the existence of God, the concept of morality, etc., and not the veracity of the Bible.

 

Therefore I would challenge you to prove that the Bible is a sufficienty accurate historical record to justify the statement, "if I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins, I will go to eternal hell."  I've asked other Christians to make this proof, and I always get a large number of incorrect arguments that have been previously employed and called into question, e.g. statements by Josephus and Pliny the Younger on the existence of Jesus, claims that Jesus' disciples died for their beliefs ("no one will willingly die for a lie"), and claims to the effect that the resurrection accounts in the gospels read like journalistic accounts.

 

I already believe in absolute truth.  Why should I believe that the New Testament isn't incorrect?

[Bhim]

OC, I've just read the rest of this thread and noticed you're facing a lot of dissent.  I imagine it's difficult for you to carry on multiple discussions and disentangle genuine debate from insults or religious jokes.  If you'd like to continue our debate in another thread, I can guarantee you that I will not personally insult you or engage in any sort of humor (whether the concept of eternal hell is true or false, I think we can both agree that it is no laughing matter).  I do not guarantee that I will not make negative comments about Jesus; in fact I guarantee precisely the opposite because I believe that Jesus is evil.  However if you are interested in a civil debate on the doctrine of eternal hell and the veracity of the New Testament, please let me know.

[Adam5]

..Yet you fail to prove the most central premise of your religion: that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that we will go to an eternal hell unless we believe that he died to save us from sin against God's law....

 

... I do not guarantee that I will not make negative comments about Jesus; in fact I guarantee precisely the opposite because I believe that Jesus is evil...

 

Hi Bhim

 

The central premise of Christianity is that if you believe in Jesus you will not perish but receive eternal life. Hell is not a central premise, and many Cs interpret it differently.  I agree with your general point that making such statements are based on a lot of assumptions.. unfounded assumptions.

 

Was your other comment a mistake? You said you will not make negative comments on Jesus and then say Jesus is evil. We all have different points of view. Mine is that Jesus probably existed but was just an ordinary 1st century Jew without magic powers.

 

Yes I noticed OC getting a lot of flak too. Good luck with that debate   cheers, Adam

[Ravenstar]

Duderonomy,

 

actually human sacrifice is in the Bible, to Yahweh. Japhtheth's daughter WAS sacrificed to Yahweh. The fact that Abraham seemed to have no problem sacrificing his firstborn to Yahweh alludes that it was a common practice at the time. There are also texts that suggest it did happen, was even commanded then Yahweh changes his mind later and makes it unlawful.

 

In Exodus 13:2 the Lord said "Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me."

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

I also reject it because both forgiveness and reconciliation require no blood sacrifice. 

Jesus forgave without blood sacrifice so I don't understand your objection. You need to think beyond anti-Christian cliches when reading the Bible. Judge with an honest heart when you read it.

 

And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

(Mar 2:5)

 

 

So Jesus' Atonement later on was not needed to ground the forgiveness of the paralytic's sins?  In that case, it is not needed to ground forgiveness of anyone's sins.  Back to your need to listen to Centauri, OC.  

 

It would be interesting for historical Jesus scholars to pick this very verse as an authentic saying of the real Jesus, because on your "without blood sacrifice" argument it should have created "embarrassment" for the early church.

 

Actually, of course, your "without blood sacrifice" remark is not an argument, just a phrase you're tossing into the mix.  You don't really believe that Jesus' shedding of blood on the cross was not the basis of the propitiation he wrought for sins.  You cannot believe that and believe, say, the Epistle to the Hebrews.  You fail to rise to the "say what you really believe" requirement that Socrates prized in dialogue.

 

Again I say, troll.

 

edited to add:  if you mean to imply a distinction between the blood of bulls and sheep and whatever spiritual sort of blood the second person of the Trinity shed, ok, but then this needs to be spelled out in your reply.

[OrdinaryClay]

OC, I've just read the rest of this thread and noticed you're facing a lot of dissent.  I imagine it's difficult for you to carry on multiple discussions and disentangle genuine debate from insults or religious jokes.  If you'd like to continue our debate in another thread, I can guarantee you that I will not personally insult you or engage in any sort of humor (whether the concept of eternal hell is true or false, I think we can both agree that it is no laughing matter).  I do not guarantee that I will not make negative comments about Jesus; in fact I guarantee precisely the opposite because I believe that Jesus is evil.  However if you are interested in a civil debate on the doctrine of eternal hell and the veracity of the New Testament, please let me know.

I accept. You can say what you like. I cannot ensure timely responses, but I will try.

[xliar]

Ok God,,,I want to win the lottery---twice

[Bhim]

Hi Bhim

 

The central premise of Christianity is that if you believe in Jesus you will not perish but receive eternal life. Hell is not a central premise, and many Cs interpret it differently.  I agree with your general point that making such statements are based on a lot of assumptions.. unfounded assumptions.

 

Was your other comment a mistake? You said you will not make negative comments on Jesus and then say Jesus is evil. We all have different points of view. Mine is that Jesus probably existed but was just an ordinary 1st century Jew without magic powers.

 

Yes I noticed OC getting a lot of flak too. Good luck with that debate   cheers, Adam

 

 

Hi Adam,

 

My comment was not a mistake, but perhaps I could have been clearer.  I said, "I do not guarantee that I will not make negative comments about Jesus."  In other words, I reserve for myself the right to make highly negative comments about Jesus.  I do want to be clear, though, that I would not do this in the context of joking.  When I say that I believe Jesus is evil, I'm not trying to piss anyone off.  I really do think that Jesus is, for all intents and purposes, a demon who is eager to eternally punish those who don't believe in him (after all, what sort of God would even devise a place like hell?).  I have said many times, and cannot stress enough, that I am not on ex-C to joke around.  Millions of evangelical Christians believe that the rest of us are going to burn in an eternal hell for refusing to convert to a religion that is foreign to our ancestors (or to put it as the Bible does, "that neither we nor our fathers have known").  This is perhaps the worst thing that one person can think of another, and I think this terrible belief needs to be taken very seriously.

 

Regarding the central premise of Christianity: the statement that belief in Jesus will result in "not perishing" is precisely the same as saying "you won't go to hell."  If not, then what does it mean to perish, in the Christian context?  I'm very interested to hear your opinion on this.

[Bhim]

I accept. You can say what you like. I cannot ensure timely responses, but I will try.

 

 

Excellent.  No worries on timeliness of response.  As I'm sure is your case as well, I've got a full time job and really can't commit a large amount of time to Internet discussions.

 

I don't think overly formal debate is what we're looking for (civil debate will suffice, I think), so if you have no objections I'll go ahead and start another thread in the Lion's Den.  I will ask, though, that any other participants stick to the issue of eternal hell and try to refrain from making jokes.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hey Bhim, over on earlywritings.com I found this thread.  Someone quotes a J.P. Moreland of Talbot Seminary on a Hindu student who had found the teachings of Jesus in the Bible more profound than those of Hinduism or any other religion and had converted.  Moreland is quoted as listing six universal needs of humans and as stating that Christianity meets these needs better than any other religion.

 

The thread is about how criteria for assessing whether Christianity is true:

 

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=51

 

I don't find Moreland's proposal convincing.  I'm wondering whether you have any thoughts about the alleged conversion of the Hindu student (which I presume occurred before the student came to Talbot Seminary).  That student seems to have made up his own Christianity, from what I'm guessing from the anecdote.

 

 

Adding:  here's Moreland's whole article:

 

http://www.jpmoreland.com/articles/religionchoice/

 

this was his best shot?  Pretty poor, I'd say.

[Mycroft]

I've been indoctrinated and talked to by sons and daughters of men my whole life, while the story is about a devine God, living up in heaven. Stories, books, signs of "the hand of God," they won't do the trick anymore. I would need to see him, talk to him, see the bigger picture we never got to see. 

[Bhim]

Hey Bhim, over on earlywritings.com I found this thread.  Someone quotes a J.P. Moreland of Talbot Seminary on a Hindu student who had found the teachings of Jesus in the Bible more profound than those of Hinduism or any other religion and had converted.  Moreland is quoted as listing six universal needs of humans and as stating that Christianity meets these needs better than any other religion.

 

The thread is about how criteria for assessing whether Christianity is true:

 

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=51

 

I don't find Moreland's proposal convincing.  I'm wondering whether you have any thoughts about the alleged conversion of the Hindu student (which I presume occurred before the student came to Talbot Seminary).  That student seems to have made up his own Christianity, from what I'm guessing from the anecdote.

 

 

Adding:  here's Moreland's whole article:

 

http://www.jpmoreland.com/articles/religionchoice/

 

this was his best shot?  Pretty poor, I'd say.

 

Thank you for citing this article.  I certainly do have some thoughts on this.  I'm not aware of any scientific study which states that all humans have the set of human needs stated by Moreland, and I certainly can't speak for others.  But I can tell you my own opinions on these supposed needs of men.

 

All humans (1) experience threefold alienation — they feel alienated from God, from other people (including those they love), and from themselves.

 

Probably like all people, there have been plenty of times when I felt alienated from others, but I had a pretty good upbringing and this wasn't the norm by any stretch of the imagination.  I don't know what it means to be alienated from myself.  And I can unequivocally state that I never felt alienated from God.  This idea is essential in order for the Christian narrative to work, because Christians need "the man Christ Jesus" to be the mediator between God and man.  But the first time I ever heard that I even should feel alienated from God was when I heard evangelical pastors preach for the first time.

 

(2) experience deep and abiding shame and guilt

 

Again, this is something that Christians need to be true in order for Christianity to function, but it doesn't represent me.  Have I felt shame or guilt at times in my life?  Of course (especially about converting to Christianity!).  But this was not the norm.  Basically, Moreland is trying to lead us to the conclusion that we are all sinners in need of atonement by the blood of Christ, through faith in Christ.  But to respond to Ray Comfort's usual line of questioning, the fact that I may have stolen a paperclip once doesn't make me a "thief" anymore than the fact that I urinated in my crib as an infant makes me a "bedwetter."

 

 (3) desire personal life after death in which their loves and ideals may continue to be a part of their experience

 

Sure, I'll give him this one.  But Hinduism already offers this.  When I was a kid we used to do a puja every month called Satyanarayana Puja, in which we read a story about how various kings, sages, etc. from India's mythology also performed puja to God to be freed from their past sinful deeds.  Every story ends with the person achieving moksha (salvation) after death.  Contrast this with the Bible, where by Jesus' own words most people will burn in an eternal hell.  My desire for personal life after death is precisely why I am not a Christian.  I wouldn't want to live in a world where most people that I know will burn in an eternal hell.

 

 (4) desire that their individual lives have meaning and purpose

 

Again, I'll give him this one.  Hinduism gives my life greater meaning, because it has the concept of Dharma, i.e. personal duty.  Contrast this with Christianity, where the answer to every question about the meaning of life is "Jesus."  This is a non-answer.  Christianity does not grant what Moreland says it offers.

 

 

(5) desire a life of beauty and drama, to be a part of something big and important, to be part of the struggle between good and evil 

 

This is really a meaningless statement.  Is there even one religion which doesn't contrast good and evil, and enjoin its adherants to strugger for good against evil?

 

(6) experience the need for help and empowerment to live a life of virtue and character.

 

Hinduism teaches people to live virtuous lives.  Christianity teaches people that you can make a deathbed confession and be saved.  When someone objects to this, the answer is "well the only other alternative is eternal hell...are you sure you want God's justice instead of his mercy?"  Aha, therein lies the problem.  By making a false dichotomy between eternal life and eternal torture, there's no room left for real justice.  The person who lived a mostly evil life can't be punished with just measure for his sins, and then be given a chance for redemption.  You either leave Jesus to bear the burden of your sins, or you suffer eternal torment.  What room, then, is left for actual virtue?  What room is left for a sinner to try and mend his ways, and to make real atonement for his own misdeeds?  In reality, eternal hell trivializes evil by creating a false choice between salvation by Jesus, and punishment in hell.

 

I think what you said is spot on.  This alleged convert made up his own version of Christianity.

[Voice]

There is none.  I've grown beyond christianity and the boundaries it would impose on me the way a tree grows beyond a seed.  Christianity provides all the evidence I need to know I'm in a better place.

If evidence of God came to me it would not take the form of christianity.  Christianity is not God, though it would have us believe it is.  That would be confusion.

[sandiego4me]

Love.   Simple as that.  This video shows that love is true.  It's not some concoction that just happens to be floating around in our cells. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dKWq0CzK-k (And, no, the video has nothing to do with Christianity).

[ExCBooster]

I did watch the video, but I don't know what that has to do with anything. Just because something pulls at the heartstrings doesn't mean that it's any sort of proof. THAT's my problem with this glurgy stuff. A feeling, a belief, faith, that doesn't mean anything to me, as far as proof goes. In fact, belief or faith just imply conflict of interest. You can believe in a lot of things, but when the roof jumper hits the concrete, it's not lack of prayers that kill, it's the -9.8 M/S² worth of acceleration, a long way down, and a very abrupt stop. In short, my money's on the Theory of Universal Gravitation. Faith and feelings are no sort of proof at all. Here's the problem: you are in a debate. I expect some logic, going on here. My response to the video as proof is: okay, so what? What does this prove? NOTHING. It's just warm fuzzies happening in the brain. That doesn't mean it's not real. A chemical reaction is as real as a slap in the face. But that's what it is: a chemical reaction. Just exactly how do you think psychiatric medications work? You take a pill and it makes sunshine in the soul? That's ludicrous. SSRIs (like Fluoxetine - marketed as Prozac) work by allowing receptor sites in the synapses to let in more serotonin, and prevent it from being reabsorbed, raising the overall level of serotonin in the brain. You feel happier.

 

Prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster), however, are adorable (it's those glittery little beady eyes!), and informative. Like most small rodents, they live very short lives. Unlike most rodents, they have a different mating pattern. They pick a mate, and settle down for the rest of their brief lives. Prairie voles, in other words, fall in love. This is actually very well studied. It's all about the neuropeptide vasopressin.