If you didn't want to believe in Christianity...

[Justin108]

If you didn't want to believe in Christianity, would you stop believing? Suppose you didn't like Christianity at all. Suppose you didn't like the idea of Jesus dying for your sins, an afterlife, etc. would your belief in Christianity stop?

If not, what is it about Christianity that makes any alternative so absolutely unbelievable?

[MadeNew]

Ya i believe in Christianity, because Christianity has proven itself to be true. Not only to my personal life, but to the world around me. It doesn't make any sense to me to say hat Christianity doesn't work, because to me it works the exact way it claimed it would.

A seed a faith, having miraculous powers (Matthew 17:20), born again (John 3:1-15), knowing with understanding and clarity (Colossians 2:2-3), the death of the flesh through the crucifixion of Christ (Galatians 5:24), being lead by faith to repentance (Romans 2:4), and being set free (John 8:32). It worked for me the exact way it claimed it would.


I mean if someone claims to be a Christian from birth, indoctrinated in, that isn't even Biblical right off the bat. That isn't how Christianity works. Christianity talks of being "Born again" which implies no one is a Christian from birth, and i find that true. So right off the bat, these kinds of claims aren't adding up. It also tells us that if you believe in the Faith you will remain in the faith. I find that true, Christianity has far reinforced itself within my beliefs. Christianity has proven to be true to me, even more and more.


So Christianity has proven itself to me to be true, and proven itself to work exactly like it tells us it would work. So claiming it doesn't work, or it works completely differently, i find hard to believe. Especially if it is just what someone claims, that we would have to take their word for. I see no evidence to believe it is true.

Christianity is also objectively true.

Christ came and fulfilled the scripture. He fulfilled the prophesies, He fulfilled the law, He fulfilled the Word of God. He came lived, died, and was resurrected. This would prove His claim as the Son of God. The prophesies testify to this, the witnesses confirm it. You say why would anyone believe in this?

This isn't only the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, it is the only reasonable one.

[Justin108]

Christ came and fulfilled the scripture. He fulfilled the prophesies, He fulfilled the law, He fulfilled the Word of God. He came lived, died, and was resurrected. This would prove His claim as the Son of God. The prophesies testify to this, the witnesses confirm it.

Oh you mean the prophecies I have asked you to provide time and time again which you for some reason refuse to do?

[PghPanther]

When OT gives rules for judges, it also says:
…judge righteously …
Deuteronomy 1:16-17

Jesus teachings are on line with that.

No Jesus' teaching are not in line with this.

Consider the following event as written in the Bible:

John 8:
[1] Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
[2] And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
[3] And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
[4] They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
[5] Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
[6] This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
[7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Notice that in this story it is the "judges" themselves brought this woman before Jesus to see what Jesus would have to say about it. Supposedly they wanted to catch him saying something wrong. And ironically he did say something very wrong, but the Bible fails to point out this fact.

So what's wrong with this story?

Well, the scribes and Pharisees are actually right. The law of Moses commands that they are to stone adulterers to death. And this is supposedly "righteous" according to the Law of God.

Also there was no question of the woman's guilt or innocence. The story clearly states that she was "Caught in the Act". So there's no question about righteous judgement here. She committed the sin, was caught in the act, and now the LAW of God must be carried out.

What does Jesus say? "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

What does this have to do with the Laws given by God through Moses? Where in those laws does it state that only sinless people are to carry out this directive?

It doesn't. Therefore Jesus' seeming "clever" answer is actually dead wrong.

There is no question about whether or not the judges themselves are sinless. The question is whether or not God's Laws should be carried out. And Jesus was basically suggesting that they should ignore the Laws given to Moses by God, and instead never stone anyone to death unless they themselves are totally free of sin. But WHERE was that ever mentioned in the original Laws? It wasn't.

In fact, this fails miserably far more than you might first realize. If only sinless people are to carry out this directive, and no man is free of sin, then shouldn't an omniscient God have known this in the first place and never given the commandment that sinful men should be stoning sinners to death?

You see this religion fails in ever case. There is no way to vindicate this religion from it's extreme self-contradictory nature. If only sin free men are to stone sinners to death, then why did the Biblical God ever command sinful men to stone sinners to death in the first place?

Who's idea was it to stone sinners to death? Clearly this was supposedly a LAW commanded by God for men.

So this religion falls flat on its face in the mud. Jesus excuse that only sin free people should be stoning people to death is not compatible with this religion's demand that all men are sinners.

So it fails. Jesus' teaching here may appear desirable to us because we don't like the Old Testament Laws. But this is still extremely problematic with the idea of a a supposedly omniscient God having commended sinful men to be stoning sinners to death in the first place.

So if the intent of the scribes and Pharisees were to catch Jesus teaching something that cannot be supported by the Old Testament laws then they actually succeeded in doing so. Apparently they either weren't bright enough to realize it, or the author of the Gospels just wrote up totally false stories about the scribes and Pharisees in an effort to make them look stupid.

So no, you are wrong. Jesus' teachings are not in line with the Old Testament Laws of Moses.

~~~~~~~

In fact, this was a HUGE issue for me back when I was still a Christian. I too liked the idea that Jesus was actually "letting us off the hook" from having to stone sinners to death. But I could also see the extreme problem with this.

My question to Jesus (had I been there at the time) would have been, "So does God want us to stone sinners to death or not?"

If Jesus answers, "No he doesn't". Then I would ask why God had ever commanded us to do this thing in the first place.

If Jesus answers, "Yes he does, but only if you are without sin". Then I would ask why God didn't make this CLEAR in the original directive. Also this would require that there exist men before Jesus who are sin free. So that's a problem for Christianity as well.

~~~~~

Do I want to stone sinners to death? No. I actually favor Jesus' idea to reject the original LAW.

However, this doesn't solve the problem. The original law made no mention that only sin-free men should carry out this law, and if it had actually made that distinction that would require that Christians re-think their claim that all men are sinners. And reject Paul's claim that all men are sinners.

So this is an extremely troubled collection of religious myths that clearly are not consistent and cannot be made to be consistent. Jesus is a contradiction to the Old Testament Laws.

And ironically Matthew 5:17-18 even has Jesus proclaiming that he did not come to change the law and that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law. But clearly he did change the law. It used to be that we are to stone sinners to death, now according to Jesus we are only to do that if we are sin-free ourselves. But that opens up a whole new can of worms that I just outlined above.

So no, the teachings of Jesus are not in line with the with laws of the OT.

You know what is really wrong with that story?

It was fabricated and put into the biblical manuscripts...............no kidding.

Bart Erhman explains this in detail...........the earliest manuscript copies of all the gospels have no such account of this story within their text.

A later textual copy by a scribe showed this story not in the text but off the side on the margin of the document and then following scribes copied that into the text and that was then copied in succeeding generations........

.......guess they thought it is something that Christ would have done and sounded so good they just uhh..........

........slipped into those good ole gospels to polish them up a bit............nice huh?

What a giant snafu the Bible is.......

and that story is one of the most common of all gospel stories........just like that bogus ending on Mark about drinking poisons without being harmed.

Wake up Christians you have been hood winked by the history of theological intent not factual accountability.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 101 by MadeNew]

!


[center]Is it true, or do you BELIEVE that it is true?[/center]

Ya i believe in Christianity, because Christianity has proven itself to be true.

"Christianity has proven itself to be true"

Do you believe that it has proven itself to be true or has it actually made itself true?
Right now, I have trouble knowing what you mean, precisely.

Do you believe that everyone, including outsiders, believes that Christianity has proven itself to be true?

Not only to my personal life, but to the world around me. It doesn't make any sense to me to say hat Christianity doesn't work, because to me it works the exact way it claimed it would.

"The world around me"

Do you believe that your evaluation of the world around you is unbiased?

I mean if someone claims to be a Christian from birth, indoctrinated in, that isn't even Biblical right off the bat. That isn't how Christianity works.

And yet, some Christians might disagree with you.. what do you have to say to them?
What about the billions of outsiders to your faith?

Christianity talks of being "Born again" which implies no one is a Christian from birth, and i find that true.

Do you think an outsider could interpret things differently ?

So right off the bat, these kinds of claims aren't adding up. It also tells us that if you believe in the Faith you will remain in the faith. I find that true, Christianity has far reinforced itself within my beliefs. Christianity has proven to be true to me, even more and more.

If one part of a text is true, does it mean that all subsequent parts are true?

So Christianity has proven itself to me to be true, and proven itself to work exactly like it tells us it would work. So claiming it doesn't work, or it works completely differently, i find hard to believe. Especially if it is just what someone claims, that we would have to take their word for. I see no evidence to believe it is true.

Are things always false because you find them hard to believe?
And I also have to wonder what you mean by "and proven itself to work exactly like it tells us it would work." Who precisely are these "US" that you are referring to.. are these outsiders or insiders to your faith ?

Christianity is also objectively true.

Christ came and fulfilled the scripture. He fulfilled the prophesies, He fulfilled the law, He fulfilled the Word of God. He came lived, died, and was resurrected. This would prove His claim as the Son of God. The prophesies testify to this, the witnesses confirm it. You say why would anyone believe in this?

All outsiders ask that. I'm asking that.. Why would we believe that these accounts are true events?

Not everybody believes that the Bible has made any accurate predictions. I'm one of those. Someone would have to prove it to me before I would believe it. Nobody has done so yet. Do I happen to believe that Bible prophecies actually have been fulfilled?
No.

There are lots of outsiders to your particular faith.
What would you tell them?

This isn't only the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, it is the only reasonable one.

Do you believe that using circular reasoning is a reliable way to arrive at a conclusion?

[MadeNew]

[Replying to post 104 by Blastcat]

Others disbelieving, different interpretations, circular logic, etc...

These things you are talking about are irrelevant to the objectivity of Christianity, or unspecified.

Others who disbelieve? The question is why do they disbelieve, what are their beliefs? And are they true?

If everyone believed in Christianity then Christianity would be objectively false, because it tells us many people won't believe it.

Different interpretations? What are those different interpretations and are they Biblical? I gave you reason that "indoctrination" from birth, isn't Biblical.

Curricular logic? My "logic" tells us nothing about whether Christianity is objectively true. It is irrelevant to whether or not Christianity is true. If you wish to discredit Christianity, show that by the objectivity of Christianity, not by how anyone might use logic...


Is Christianity false? Is it true? or you don't know?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 105 by MadeNew]

Others disbelieving, different interpretations, circular logic, etc...

These things you are talking about are irrelevant to the objectivity of Christianity, or unspecified.

Ok, what is relevant to Christianity being true ?

Others who disbelieve? The question is why do they disbelieve, what are their beliefs? And are they true?

Good question.
How are we to know?

If everyone believed in Christianity then Christianity would be objectively false, because it tells us many people won't believe it.

I'm not sure that I follow.. maybe it was a typo.
Could you clarify?

Different interpretations? What are those different interpretations and are they Biblical? I gave you reason that "indoctrination" from birth, isn't Biblical.

How do you establish that your reason is the truth?

Curricular logic? My "logic" tells us nothing about whether Christianity is objectively true.

Ah.
Sorry, I was under the impression that you thought Christianity was true.

It is irrelevant to whether or not Christianity is true.

I have to admit that I'm a little bit confused now.
Can you clarify?

Are you saying that Christianity is true or not?

If you wish to discredit Christianity, show that by the objectivity of Christianity, not by how anyone might interpret it.

Aren't you interpreting it?

And please forgive me for giving you the wrong impression. I am NOT trying to discredit Christianity.

I am merely trying to follow your reasoning.
A bit of clarification would help.

[Justin108]

Others disbelieving, different interpretations, circular logic, etc...

These things you are talking about are irrelevant to the objectivity of Christianity, or unspecified.

Throwing around these single phrases is not an honest and accurate reflection of Blastcat's arguments. Try again.

Oh and I see you ignored my request for prophecies... again.

[MadeNew]

[Replying to post 105 by MadeNew]

Others disbelieving, different interpretations, circular logic, etc...

These things you are talking about are irrelevant to the objectivity of Christianity, or unspecified.

Ok, what is relevant to Christianity being true ?

Others who disbelieve? The question is why do they disbelieve, what are their beliefs? And are they true?

Good question.
How are we to know?

If everyone believed in Christianity then Christianity would be objectively false, because it tells us many people won't believe it.

I'm not sure that I follow.. maybe it was a typo.
Could you clarify?

Different interpretations? What are those different interpretations and are they Biblical? I gave you reason that "indoctrination" from birth, isn't Biblical.

How do you establish that your reason is the truth?

Curricular logic? My "logic" tells us nothing about whether Christianity is objectively true.

Ah.
Sorry, I was under the impression that you thought Christianity was true.

It is irrelevant to whether or not Christianity is true.

I have to admit that I'm a little bit confused now.
Can you clarify?

Are you saying that Christianity is true or not?

If you wish to discredit Christianity, show that by the objectivity of Christianity, not by how anyone might interpret it.

Aren't you interpreting it?

And please forgive me for giving you the wrong impression. I am NOT trying to discredit Christianity.

I am merely trying to follow your reasoning.
A bit of clarification would help.

Ok so you don't know if Christianity is true or not? That if Jesus really did fulfill the scripture, and lived died and was resurrected. If Jesus Christ is really the Son of God. If he scripture is true, then these things are objectively true... So you aren't here to debate that? You want to debate how my own reasoning might be faulty in some way? Is that it? Well maybe your right, I'm a sinner, i don't think i have perfect reasoning. But thank God Jesus Christ forgives us for such things.

[Blastcat]

Double post.
Apologies.

Please delete

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 108 by MadeNew]

[center]
Sometimes in the heat of a debate, we completely forget to answer the questions.[/center]

Ok so you don't know if Christianity is true or not?

I had asked you to clarify your actual position. It seems that you said you believed that Christianity was true and then you said that your "logic" tells you nothing about whether Christianity is objectively true. I'm asking you to support your claims.

I still don't know if you think that Christianity is true or not.
Could you clarify your position.

That if Jesus really did fulfill the scripture, and lived died and was resurrected. If Jesus Christ is really the Son of God. If he scripture is true, then these things are objectively true... So you aren't here to debate that?

If you make a claim, such as those, please present supporting evidence.

You want to debate how my own reasoning might be faulty in some way? Is that it?

I want you to support your claim if you make one.

Well maybe your right, I'm a sinner, i don't think i have perfect reasoning. But thank God Jesus Christ forgives us for such things.

[center]I am not concerned about your perfection either. I would like you to answer questions about your belief. And if you make claims, provide supporting evidence.[/center]