Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs " including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[Dropship]

A Boy Scout Manual would be FAR more useful than a bible (or military or other survival manual)..

The Bible is a Spiritual Survival Manual..
For example when a midair collision knocked out the pilots in 'Airport 1975', Heston was able to radio instructions to stewardess Karen Black to tell her how to juggle the throttles and controls to stay airborne.
Likewise, Jesus was like Heston, telling us how to ensure our souls can fly after our bodies die..

Kennedy- "She's flying it!"
Heston- "Climb baby, climb!"

[Bust Nak]

The logo is only indirectly Christian

Face palm , shakes head .

You guys are a tough crowd, but that is why I think I am gong to like it here . I wouldn't want it any other way.

The logo was based on a nation flag and not a religion. Had the Swiss flag been a circle then the logo would be a red circle instead; had Henry Dunant been Scottish the logo would have been a blue X. Am I wrong?

[Zzyzx]

.

This is what annoys me and the others. These constant assertions that someone with a bible, or someone with faith, is better, of a higher character, or in some weird fashion superior to other people.

They can't get under Jesus's radar.

Does the supposed Jesus radar pick up only people of faith?

Whether or not it hypothetically does, those who believe they are being watched by Jesus cannot be shown to be "better" or have "higher character" than Non-Believers -- except in their own mind (and their false claims of superiority).

How does that differ from delusion?

The Bible is a Spiritual Survival Manual

That explains why the Boy Scout Manual is more useful in real life.

Likewise, Jesus was like Heston, telling us how to ensure our souls can fly after our bodies die

What is lacking in this claim is any evidence that the claimed "soul" and "afterlife" are anything more than overworked imagination and wishful thinking.


BTW, for anyone interested, AdBlock software eliminates the pointless photos.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 192 by Clownboat]

Both actions are done due to their religious beliefs.
Muslims are willing to blow themselves up for theirs, Christians are just willing to put band aides on people in dangerous neighborhoods.

Who has the greater religious conviction here?
Welcome to the Islamic faith.

Islamic terrorist , not Muslims in general , are willing to become suicide bombers.

Thank you for this admission. Their faith, as you are such a fan of is so great compared to those who are only willing to go to bad neighborhoods around the world it would seem.

Tell us more about this Christian faith that supplies strength so I can compare it to Muslim faith. What would require greater conviction? Killing yourself for your faith, or helping people in rough areas.

You just can't harp on how great Christian faith is and just ignore other peoples faith. If only you had more of this faith thing you seem to revere so much, perhaps you would be able to apply said faith to Allah and kill some infidels so you can go to heaven and have 72 virgins at your command.

How is it that you seem to be blind about what faith really does? Faith does not lead to the Christian god. If you (generic you) are the type of person that can just apply faith willy nilly as you see fit, you (generic) can literally apply said faith to any god concept you choose and become a member of said group.

Apparently faith leads to belief in false gods (taking a small leap here that you disbelieve in all gods but your own) except when it comes to where you choose to apply your faith. Then we are to believe it is some true and magical thing that supplies strength. This is tough to swallow.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 212 by Bust Nak]

The logo was based on a nation flag and not a religion. Had the Swiss flag been a circle then the logo would be a red circle instead; had Henry Dunant been Scottish the logo would have been a blue X. Am I wrong?

As far as what I know of the history it represents the Marc of Cain , although all of this is arguable. The symbol is obviously a Christian symbol. Dunant actually reversed the colors.

The Muslims are throwing a fit over it in Switzerland because of its representation of Christianity .

Dunants family was very deep in the Christian faith , so it is no doubt a religious symbol , that has became more of an international symbol of medicine and first aid.

So you are not " wrong " in a sense , but the cross is the main symbol that counts , so I do not think he would of used a circle, if the flag would have been a circle.

I believe the idea was to be seen on the battlefield and distinguish them form the enemy.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 191 by KenRU]

I don't think this logic holds up under scrutiny though. While it is clear that religions can absolutely compel/instill/instigate/propel (choose your word here) people to do a variety of things they may not otherwise do, it doesn't mean that their motives are good or that it is being done for the right reasons. Nor does it mean it is sending the right message.

Yes , faith can make you accomplish things that otherwise you might not have . This involves growing faith , which the pictured analogy in the bible would be one of a seed growing into a huge tree. Faith according to bible scripture must be nurtured and "increased ", as it either increases or decreases , faith is not static as far as Christianity is concerned . Mission work assures that ones faith does not remain static and is grown , which in turn makes them a stronger individual. This is where the fortitude comes from , to allow them to brave these adversities to help others., that others might not be able to without this component.

I agree that religion (any religion) can give someone strength and fortitude. But this inner power is not solely derived from religion. It can be found in other sources: family, country, greed, lust for power etc.

That someone can be motivated by something does not speak to its accuracy, truthfulness or benevolence.

Based on the idea of mission involving servitude , I highly doubt that hidden motives would come into play .

I never said there were hidden motives or agendas (though there could be).

I reiterate my point, which you avoided: For example: I argue that any atheist involved in DWB/MSF is more altruistic than a religionist who is there because god wills it or because that he fears for his own soul, or any of the myriad of theistic reasons.

Im curious as to you thoughts on this.

What hidden motive could there be for going to build a well in the poorest part of El Salvador , or bringing toothbrushes and dental hygiene to cut off villages in Iraq and Afghanistan? What about the times they do this knowing they will be killed, or imprisoned if they proselytize, yet they do it without being able to give a message anyway?

The doctors without borders were killed because they were thought to have been proselytizing , which I highly doubt . They are based on neutrality ,with no religious or political agenda.

Granted You made a good point about how an intervention did cause and has caused issues , due to the "message ", they were sending concerning contraceptives . This has since changed , but the over all good they do should not be dismissed either.

The main motive of a Christian helping the other is the fulfillment that comes along with the act of serving others . This is a basic tenet of the Christian faith. Servitude , not a hidden agenda , would not fit here .

And those who arent Christian who devote their time to servitude?

I have no idea what percentage of Christians devoted to servitude are proselytizing or have hidden agendas. But, imo, to think that it never occurs or is rare would be a bit nave " given human nature being as it is.

All the best,.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 200 by Zzyzx]

If as much can be accomplished without religion (or "faith") what is the reason to be religious (in this regard)?

There would be no reason for servitude without their faith. Their would be no need for mission to grow their faith.

Should a non Christian and a Christian get stranded , I would put odds on the one with the bible to make it through a bit better, as the non Christians faith would stay static , while the faith of the Christian would show increase , through the word of his/her bible.

The other would see this strength and probably follow suit, even if doubtful .

Some people view faith to be nothing but gullibility.
To better understand how your posts are coming across, I ask that you re-read your above paragraph but read 'gullible' in place of 'faith'.

This proves nothing in this debate I admit, but it may help you to better 'know your opponents' and to know how your debate points are coming across. If you were in church making this argument, gullibility would not come up, but this is not church and your posts read how they read.

And you seem proud of it....

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 205 by enviousintheeverafter]

This comment seems awfully revealing, and tends to reinforce the conclusion of the above mentioned study; that the religious person wouldn't see a reason to act out of compassion/for the good of others without a religious mandate telling them they should. The non-religious person would generally not need such a (questionable) reason- helping others would be reason enough.

Not at all. Should the religion not exist ,then there would be no need for servitude , pretty cut and dry , this does not mean that the individual could not have compassion without religion. A person without a religion would not be a religious person in the first place , did the study take this conundrum into account ?

Without a "religious mandate" , this would make them both "non religious " , would it not ? This would also be gauged on the individual also .

There seems to be more proclivity in showing compassion by Christians , this is abundantly obvious all over the world. This does not mean the one without religion can not match this level of compassion , this just means that the non religious do not do so on the level of that Christianity propels one too. This is not a judgment sating this makes them superior in any way, this is just an obvious observation , where the proof is prevalent in the actions of missionaries , not just their words. Which goes back to , for the third time ...

There is a difference in having compassion and showing compassion , the Christian bible teaches Christians to show compassion by helping those who can not help themselves , a non Christian does not have such a guide .

The idea of helping others is about humility, and humbling ones self , self sacrifice , not about reward, although according to the faith , reward will be realized. As far as "being superior ", once again , these Christians do not put themselves above anyone , even the most down trodden they help , this would go against the whole premise of humbling yourself , ie , forgetting yourself and putting others first.

Feeling overly proud or "puffed up", is not the candor the bible teaches Christians to have. Quite the opposite actually. The bible actually teaches against being "puffed up".

[Bust Nak]

As far as what I know of the history it represents the Marc of Cain , although all of this is arguable. The symbol is obviously a Christian symbol. Dunant actually reversed the colors.

Well that's not what the organisation states officially.

"The First Geneva Convention recognized the red cross on a white background as the single distinctive emblem.

Since the emblem was to reflect the neutrality of the armed forces'medical services and the protection conferred on them, the emblem adopted was formed by reversing the colours of the Swiss flag.

Switzerland's permanent neutral status had been firmly established in practice for several years, and had been confirmed by the Treaties of Vienna and Paris in 1815. Furthermore, the white flag was and remains a symbol of the wish to negotiate or to surrender; firing on anyone displaying it in good faith is unacceptable.

The resulting symbol had the advantage of being easily produced and recognizable at a distance because of its contrasting colours."

The Muslims are throwing a fit over it in Switzerland because of its representation of Christianity.

Speaking of which, do you really think a Christian organisation would adopt a crescent as one of its emblem? It's clearly secular.

Dunants family was very deep in the Christian faith , so it is no doubt a religious symbol , that has became more of an international symbol of medicine and first aid.

So you are not " wrong " in a sense , but the cross is the main symbol that counts , so I do not think he would of used a circle, if the flag would have been a circle.

I am sure a cross has religious significance to Dunant, but we are talking about the organisation he founded, as opposed to his personal view. Noting the importance of Switzerland's neutrality, I very much believe he would have went with a circle, had the Swiss flag happened to be a circle.

I believe the idea was to be seen on the battlefield and distinguish them form the enemy.

Exactly my point. The symbol is denote neutrality as opposed to denote Christianity.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 208 by rikuoamero]

So two people get stranded...on a tropical island you mean? And for some reason you just state that the Christian would make it through "a bit better". Why? You don't really provide a reason. It is entirely possible and plausible that that Christian could be of the persuasion that he's on that island for a godly reason, and thus, he won't do anything to help himself.

This very well could be , as surely a Christian considers their life or fate under their Gods control , but that would not make this individual not do anything to help their self out . One common philosophy of Christianity , which I am sure you are familiar with , is that God only helps those that help themselves.

Once again the non Christians faith would stay static , as their is nothing to grow it on, even more than likely decreasing the longer it takes to be rescued . The Christian would probably worry less , as he/she has something to grow their faith on , showing increase in faith in times of desperation. This does not mean the non Christian would not have the same will to survive , this would mean he/she might have a harder time getting through this trial or tribulation.

How you handle adversity in life will define your true character . The Bible is all about how to handle adversity, even a non believer could apply these teachings to their life and it could show them ways to handle different adversities , so the one with something to grow their faith on , be it true or not , would probably fare better than whose faith would remain static.