Wishful thinking and the imagination: A Godless Christianity

[Tart]

To say someones beliefs is just "wishful thinking" and in the imagination is an accusation that suggest people are creating things in their mind, that they are creating beliefs that might not necessarily be true or have any evidence supporting them, but declaring it as truth...

This is actually a very common criticism against those who hold beliefs in a God.

But what I am coming to realize is that my beliefs in Christianity, seem to be based and rooted in the evidence, and are subject to change accordingly to the evidence. The only reason I ever believed in God was because Jesus Christ was shown to support that idea. That I had no idea what something like "salvation" was until it was logically explained, and made sense of by the witnesses. That my hope and faith are byproducts of the testimony of the witnesses, and the reasonable ideas that they gave for the belief in the God of Christianity... My belief is dependent on the evidence, and subject to change according to the evidence.

Indeed, it seems to me that my beliefs are not something I created, from wishful thinking and the imagination. But are instead founded in the evidences of Christianity...


On the other hand, I see nonbelievers and atheist come to conclusions about Christianity that there is no supporting evidences of. That their conclusions arent support by evidence, but instead by their own reasoning in their imagination, and their "wishful thinking" of a Godless Christianity.

There are many examples, and its easy to spot them. All you have to do is ask for evidence. For years i have been asking atheists for evidence to back up their beliefs about Jesus and Christianity.. And many have tried, but have given no solid evidence or reasoning that there was no Jesus, or he didnt meet the prophecies of the Messiah, or the witnesses made the entire story up, or that people lied about the entire religion. It seems like there is just no solid evidence supporting any of these things..

For example, one user recently claimed that there was probably 2 Jesus's, but had no supporting evidence of that (like this was created in his imagination). Another claimed that Jesus was created by the Romans in 300AD, but when pressed it turned out the only evidence for this claim was a pronunciation problem he thought up in his head from a language he never spoke (many may recognize this claim). Or another example is that Jesus was a creation from other myths, like the movie zeitgeist claims, but this has been totally discredited by scholars, and it turned out that people just thought this up in the early 1900's in their imaginations.

Granted, some of these claims are rooted in atheism, and may be atheist siting other atheist. Like if someone sited zeitgeist (where zeitgeist is a totally imagined up, created, explanation of Christianity not supported by any evidence), that would mean they are siting evidence, but its still just rooted in the imagination. It seems like the roots of all these claims are people creating beliefs in their heads of who Jesus was, how Christianity came to be, and the where it came from, and not basing it off the evidence or letting the evidence lead to their conclusions... (if they did, i believe they would be Christians (like Lee Strobel for example))

I mean, atheists and non believers cant even agree with themselves here... All these beliefs are all over the place, like Paul hallucinated his encounter with Christ, or Paul didnt even exist. Or Rome created Jesus and Jesus didnt exist, or Jesus was really a man but not the Son of God... I mean we see all of these claims, and they dont even support themselves...

It seems to me that, not only the best explanation is the one given in the scriptures by the prophets and the witnesses, but it is the only reasonable explanation...

But the Bottom line here is... Who is creating a belief here? My belief are simply observations of Christianity. I certainly did not create Christianity in any sense. I simply observe is claims as true... And it seems like all these other claims are things people are thinking up in their heads, like for example "Jesus is a myth".... The "wishful thinking" of a Godless Christianity.

Here is a supporting quote from an Agnostic New Testament Scholar.

"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus"~Bart Ehrman

[Divine Insight]

Now you may not wish to "stone" this lady, as none of us do, because we live in a time of the New Covenant brought on by Christ...

Where do you get this idea?

The New Testament clearly has Jesus stating just the opposite:

Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

That's not decreeing a new covenant. It's exactly the opposite confirming that Jesus did not come to change the laws and that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law.

So this idea that Jesus brought a "New Covenant" isn't compatible with Mathew 5:17-19

What you believe is contradictory, the Old Covenant vs the New, I just dont believe is... God established the Old Testament all the while prophesying of the New... That is consistent in its beliefs.. It would be like an evolution of theology...

But Matthew 5:17-19 doesn't allow for this.

Also, if you agree with Jesus and disagree with Yahweh, then what good is that? Yahweh would then be the God that you disagree with.

Also, instead of Jesus acting like this was the idea of the men who were going to stone the woman to death then why didn't he just say, "I have come to change the law and you are no longer commanded to stone sinners to death"

I mean, face it, there is no way to make this into a consistent theology.

If Jesus was so keen on telling TRUTH then why didn't he just say that he came to change the law?

Why lie and proclaim that he did not come to change the law?

If Jesus had proclaimed that he came to change the laws, we could address that. But that's not Biblical.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 69 by Tart]

Evidence, I am simply taking the reciprocal stance you do.
I find myself completely capable of ignoring the testament of people of people who can't be shown to exist who vouch for another person who can't be shown to exist, in favour of:

Physics.
History.
The impossibility of Biblical claims.
Logic.
The politics of Rome.

Where you ignore these, I ignore fairy stories equally.
My belief in these is as faith based as your own.

Ok... we are talking about Christianity, and the evidences that surround Christianity. Like the scripture, those who wrote the scripture, where it came from, etc...

And you claim (as you always do), the Romans created Jesus, right? And you have no evidence of that? You just thought it up in your head?

I will allow you to claim that science contradicts God, as this is beyond the scope of this topic... However that doesnt help your case that the Romans created Jesus... Does it?

This response has diverted the conversation into an objection of the miraculous, which ill allow you to concede... But that doesnt help your case about your pronunciation claim.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 72 by Tart]

Evidence:
Roman policy of usurping religion. I have complete faith in the callousness and efficiency of Rome, to write religious propaganda, even send agents.
Zeus is Deus, the God to all of Europe.
JeZeus being Jesus.
Jove being Yahweh.
Resurrection being impossible, as are the other miracles, except in YOUR religion, OTHER PEOPLE's fairy tales are false. Have faith, the other say the same thing, they are wrong, but yours is right.
Physics stating we need no act of creation.
Logic, there is no reason any god would send a saviour. We are more likely to send salvation to an ant mound.

Note, all of these are these are facts (save the ants).

[Tart]

Now you may not wish to "stone" this lady, as none of us do, because we live in a time of the New Covenant brought on by Christ...

Where do you get this idea?

The New Testament clearly has Jesus stating just the opposite:

Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

That's not decreeing a new covenant. It's exactly the opposite confirming that Jesus did not come to change the laws and that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law.

So this idea that Jesus brought a "New Covenant" isn't compatible with Mathew 5:17-19

What you believe is contradictory, the Old Covenant vs the New, I just dont believe is... God established the Old Testament all the while prophesying of the New... That is consistent in its beliefs.. It would be like an evolution of theology...

But Matthew 5:17-19 doesn't allow for this.

Also, if you agree with Jesus and disagree with Yahweh, then what good is that? Yahweh would then be the God that you disagree with.

Also, instead of Jesus acting like this was the idea of the men who were going to stone the woman to death then why didn't he just say, "I have come to change the law and you are no longer commanded to stone sinners to death"

I mean, face it, there is no way to make this into a consistent theology.

If Jesus was so keen on telling TRUTH then why didn't he just say that he came to change the law?

Why lie and proclaim that he did not come to change the law?

If Jesus had proclaimed that he came to change the laws, we could address that. But that's not Biblical.

Jesus came in the fulfillment of the law... Which your verse supports... He said that morality should surpass the teachers of the law. Which is just a few verses past where you stopped your quotation.... And thats what happen..

The inconsistencies you create, are your creation of inconsistencies... Neither I, nor Jesus, nor any of the disciples believed this is a contradiction... You are the one who created this in your head...Which we are trying to steer clear of.

[benchwarmer]

The claims of the scripture is that it is revaluation from God, and not random guessing... Now if you want to disagree with that, you are more then entitled to do so, but lets try and make sense of the evidence.. So you think these men were random guessing prophesies, and they were lying about it being revealed from God... Is that correct?

More or less correct, yes. They may have believed they were 'inspired' by a god, but given there is no actual, verifiable evidence of any of the thousands of god concepts, the rational conclusion is that these 'prophesies' were made up to try and impress or control someone.

Becuase it isnt just random guessing... It would have to be random guessing, and then lying about it being revaluations from God, (or something else)...

You know what, I'm going to somewhat side with you here. It likely wasn't just pure random guessing. It was likely premeditated lying. i.e. I'm going to write down some 'prophesies' and them claim I got them from a god.

I was not trying to imply they just rolled some bones/dice/whatever and wrote down the result -though I'm sure this has happened in some/many religions as well.

(AND FYI, saying the prophecies are completely based on random guessing, is absurd when you study the prophecies... If you'd like i can share prophecies with you).

No need, I've read the book and got the t-shirt.

So you think that the prophets wrote prophecies, as counteracting an argument that other people with different beliefs... (Im trying to make sense of this equivalence between your "Big deal! I can write down on a piece of paper...")

No, you are missing the point.

You believe your particular favorite prophecies are 'valid' because it says so in the same book where the prophecies are written. Circular logic much?

Thus, if I write down the prophecies of the invisible pink unicorn and follow it with "thus sayeth the invisible pink unicorn" then I guess you will believe it right? Right?? It's the same thing. You have no evidence these did not come from the great invisible pink unicorn.

If this is equivalent, you would have to think these prophets were saying fake prophesies as to counter a rivalry belief system.. Is that right? That was their motives (like as your motive)?

No, as explained above that's wrong. I'm drawing a parallel, not trying to trump your prophecies with other ones. The point is you have no way to verify your prophecies over any other. You use 'faith' based on nothing but hearsay.

And i suggest to you that this is what you think about the prophecies.. What you thought up in your head, about their existence... And i would suggest to you that you should go study the prophecies, before making claims your imagination is thinking up...

How about, since you claim to know what's what, you simply provide verifiable evidence for your favorite prophecies and end the argument? Keep in mind, simple hearsay does not count. If you can't do that, then I'm not sure what the point of your argument is.

There are many prophecies that I can show you that dont fit what you are saying.. Would you like to see some?

Only if you can provide solid evidence the prophecy was indeed written before the event and the prophecy is unambiguous in it's meaning. Feel free to pick one and lay it on us. Be prepared to explain how we can verify that it is (1) an actual prophecy and not a lucky guess, (2) directly predicts an actual, verifiable outcome, and (3) it came from a god. Good luck.

Yes, this "actual god" talk is certainly a god you created in your head... Like your imagination... I dont really care if you dont agree with the nature of the Christian God.. The question would be, is Christianity true, in which case you objections of how you think god should be like, are wrong.

No, the god I describe is the one I read about in the Bible. I did not make it up though it's clear other humans did.

Example: Is this god so short on good ideas that killing every living organism save a few crammed on a wooden boat is the best way to 'cleanse' the earth of sin? Laughable. I can come up with, and have in other threads, much more elegant solutions that might have actually worked. Clearly this flood idea was a total bust.

And, agian, just a created idea of how you think God should be... Lets not do that. right? You guys are totally agianst that, wishful thinking, and creating gods in your head, yet this is exactly what you are doing it here.

Wrong. I am reading and examining the described god. I see it do stupid things and wonder why an actual god would do that rather than something that really worked. Or why it created the problem in the first place, only to fail multiple times at fixing it.

Becuase that is the reality of Christianity, just like how all the first disciples wrote letters to all the different churches around the world... Ya...

Was that a concession to the truth that your god is not guiding Christianity? Interesting.

We should expect Christianity is be consistent with reality, if its true.. And not with a god an atheist created in his head... We should actually expect god to be radically different then the one atheists create in their head... And here we are...

I'm not the one creating god concepts, I'm merely the one commenting on the ones written down by others. Maybe when my Epistles of the Invisible Pink Unicorn come out you will have me.

Wait... What prophets of Zeus? Do you have any? Of eyewitness testimony of Zues... Anything?

I suggest you brush up on your Greek history. Google 'oracle'. I guess you will be switching to team Zeus then?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 72 by Tart]

Evidence:
Roman policy of usurping religion. I have complete faith in the callousness and efficiency of Rome, to write religious propaganda, even send agents.
Zeus is Deus, the God to all of Europe.
JeZeus being Jesus.
Jove being Yahweh.
Resurrection being impossible, as are the other miracles, except in YOUR religion, OTHER PEOPLE's fairy tales are false. Have faith, the other say the same thing, they are wrong, but yours is right.
Physics stating we need no act of creation.
Logic, there is no reason any god would send a saviour. We are more likely to send salvation to an ant mound.

Note, all of these are these are facts (save the ants).

you dont have any evidence?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 76 by Tart]

I have all the evidence you do.
Your evidence:
Where you choose to believe 12 disciples talking about a man talking about himself; a god who boinked his mother so he could give birth himself, so that he could sacrifice himself for a couple of days to resurrect himself, so that he could make up for the mistake he made in creation.


Whereas:
I choose to believe the physics makes a creator impossible, with the Conservation of Mass.
I choose to believe that the Roman policy of usurping native gods with their own to smooth rulership, such as Zeus-Ammon, Sulis-Minerva, and Syrian-Apollo, etc..
I choose to believe that resurrection, water-to-wine and so on are impossible and illogical, until shown contrary evidence.

Why is your evidence better than mine?

[Tart]

The claims of the scripture is that it is revaluation from God, and not random guessing... Now if you want to disagree with that, you are more then entitled to do so, but lets try and make sense of the evidence.. So you think these men were random guessing prophesies, and they were lying about it being revealed from God... Is that correct?

More or less correct, yes. They may have believed they were 'inspired' by a god, but given there is no actual, verifiable evidence of any of the thousands of god concepts, the rational conclusion is that these 'prophesies' were made up to try and impress or control someone.

Becuase it isnt just random guessing... It would have to be random guessing, and then lying about it being revaluations from God, (or something else)...

You know what, I'm going to somewhat side with you here. It likely wasn't just pure random guessing. It was likely premeditated lying. i.e. I'm going to write down some 'prophesies' and them claim I got them from a god.

I was not trying to imply they just rolled some bones/dice/whatever and wrote down the result -though I'm sure this has happened in some/many religions as well.

Ok, well i just pulled that out of thin air, that they lied about the prophecies... So this is just based on speculation...

(AND FYI, saying the prophecies are completely based on random guessing, is absurd when you study the prophecies... If you'd like i can share prophecies with you).

No need, I've read the book and got the t-shirt.

So you think that the prophets wrote prophecies, as counteracting an argument that other people with different beliefs... (Im trying to make sense of this equivalence between your "Big deal! I can write down on a piece of paper...")

No, you are missing the point.

You believe your particular favorite prophecies are 'valid' because it says so in the same book where the prophecies are written. Circular logic much?

Thus, if I write down the prophecies of the invisible pink unicorn and follow it with "thus sayeth the invisible pink unicorn" then I guess you will believe it right? Right?? It's the same thing. You have no evidence these did not come from the great invisible pink unicorn.

So you think the prophecies were created, after the event happened. That is to say that the "prophets" (quote on quote) observed an event, and then, wrote a book claiming they wrote the book before the event that they observed, and lied about having foreknowledge... Is that right?

What do you think of these prophecies?
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations..."~Jesus

or this one
38 “The days are coming,� declares the Lord, “when this city will be rebuilt for me... [Jerusalem] will be holy to the Lord. The city will never again be uprooted or demolished.�~Jeremiah

How would you make sense out of these?

If this is equivalent, you would have to think these prophets were saying fake prophesies as to counter a rivalry belief system.. Is that right? That was their motives (like as your motive)?

No, as explained above that's wrong. I'm drawing a parallel, not trying to trump your prophecies with other ones. The point is you have no way to verify your prophecies over any other. You use 'faith' based on nothing but hearsay.

Do you know the Old Testament was written before the New... By hundreds of years... How would you like to explain the prophecies fulfilled in the New, from the Old? Would you like to look at specifics?

(i mean you say that you have no need for me to reference any prophecies, yet we are talking about the prophecies, and what you think of them, with you over generalizations, paining with a wide brush... you would think, if anyone actually studied the prophecies and came to conclusions about them led by the evidence, they would be happy to dive into the evidence itself.... )

And i suggest to you that this is what you think about the prophecies.. What you thought up in your head, about their existence... And i would suggest to you that you should go study the prophecies, before making claims your imagination is thinking up...

How about, since you claim to know what's what, you simply provide verifiable evidence for your favorite prophecies and end the argument? Keep in mind, simple hearsay does not count. If you can't do that, then I'm not sure what the point of your argument is.

How about the two mentioned above?

There are many prophecies that I can show you that dont fit what you are saying.. Would you like to see some?

Only if you can provide solid evidence the prophecy was indeed written before the event and the prophecy is unambiguous in it's meaning. Feel free to pick one and lay it on us. Be prepared to explain how we can verify that it is (1) an actual prophecy and not a lucky guess, (2) directly predicts an actual, verifiable outcome, and (3) it came from a god. Good luck.

No i am not here to convince you of anything. You are not my Jury of Christianity, you are the prosecution...

But all the prophecies in the Old Testament that were fufilled in the New Testament... It is proven they came hundreds of years before Jesus and the New Testament...

So let me take a stab at it, you think that (for some unknown reason) people created prophecies about a Messiah.. Some claiming dates of the Messiah, some claiming the crucifixion, some claiming about events during his life, etc... They were all made up as lies by prophets hundreds of years before hand, and then for some reason, people falsified a Messiah that fulfilled over 300 prophecies from a dozen of prophets? Where none of the prophets knew any of the witnesses... In fact,a lot of the prophets didnt even know each other.... But they happened to complete a coherent conspiracy, that all of them were involved in... Or something? How does that make sense?

Or what do you believe? for example.. Here are some claimed prophecies, written hundreds of years before Christ, identified as prophecies by the disciples and the falsified its fulfillment... ??

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed."~Isaiah

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."~Micah

"25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.�~Daniel

Yes, this "actual god" talk is certainly a god you created in your head... Like your imagination... I dont really care if you dont agree with the nature of the Christian God.. The question would be, is Christianity true, in which case you objections of how you think god should be like, are wrong.

No, the god I describe is the one I read about in the Bible. I did not make it up though it's clear other humans did.

Example: Is this god so short on good ideas that killing every living organism save a few crammed on a wooden boat is the best way to 'cleanse' the earth of sin? Laughable. I can come up with, and have in other threads, much more elegant solutions that might have actually worked. Clearly this flood idea was a total bust.

Yes, in your imagined idea of who you think God should be, as an atheist...lol... A god shouldnt even exist on your logic... But you create a god image to contradict any evidence of any god? That is expected of you...

I dont claim to know any better then the God revealed, or have any more knowledge then Him.

And, agian, just a created idea of how you think God should be... Lets not do that. right? You guys are totally agianst that, wishful thinking, and creating gods in your head, yet this is exactly what you are doing it here.

Wrong. I am reading and examining the described god. I see it do stupid things and wonder why an actual god would do that rather than something that really worked. Or why it created the problem in the first place, only to fail multiple times at fixing it.

Yes, you reason atheistically... But we believe, truth, knowledge, understanding, and reason is built upon God.

Becuase that is the reality of Christianity, just like how all the first disciples wrote letters to all the different churches around the world... Ya...

Was that a concession to the truth that your god is not guiding Christianity? Interesting.

We should expect Christianity is be consistent with reality, if its true.. And not with a god an atheist created in his head... We should actually expect god to be radically different then the one atheists create in their head... And here we are...

I'm not the one creating god concepts, I'm merely the one commenting on the ones written down by others. Maybe when my Epistles of the Invisible Pink Unicorn come out you will have me.

Wait... What prophets of Zeus? Do you have any? Of eyewitness testimony of Zues... Anything?

I suggest you brush up on your Greek history. Google 'oracle'. I guess you will be switching to team Zeus then?

Listen. I understand you doubt Christianity, but i am simply looking for a coherent answer for a explanation for the scriptures, where they came from, why, etc...

Because the explanation the disciples gave, is rock solid... It makes sense out of the entirety of the scriptures. It isnt based on nothing more then speculation and doubt.. Of all the dozens of prophets, and the hundreds and thousands of prophecies, their answer encompasses all of it, in a coherent explanation for its existence. What we dont have, is evidence of anyone lying, or evidence the events came before the prophesies (we actually have evidence against this)..

I just want a coherent answer, but i know im finishing in a fish-less lake... Or do you have one? An answer that doesnt just reject the evdience, but makes sense of why to reject it... Im just looking for a coherent answer...

[Willum]

[Replying to post 78 by Tart]

Those prophesy make perfect sense if they were written by Rome, who ruled the world, and could dictate what was preached there, and what cities were destroyed.

Of course Jerusalem has been destroyed a few times, but who's counting?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 78 by Tart]

Those prophesy make perfect sense if they were written by Rome, who ruled the world, and could dictate what was preached there, and what cities were destroyed.

Of course Jerusalem has been destroyed a few times, but who's counting?

Do you have any evidence Rome wrote the prophecies?