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

[benchwarmer]

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?

This is a distinct possibility in addition to some of them simply being vague predictions that were never inspired by an actual god.

Here's the thing, I don't know FOR SURE, one way or the other. Both of my explanations (people either guessing/making things up or writing things down after they happen) are completely natural explanations that make sense. Your explanation is a CLAIM that they did indeed come from a god. Thus, you have the burden of proof to give positive evidence for your positive claim. Got any? Keep in mind it must include verifiable evidence of a god if you want to claim it came from one.

Again, here are the things I'm looking for:

1) Was this written BEFORE the event in question?

2) Is it unambiguous? i.e. does it detail a precise event or is it so vague as to be useless?

3) Was it from a god or the imaginations of men/women?

Thus, even if you pass (1) and (2), but can't give evidence for (3), all you've done is show that some men/women are good guessers. Big whoop. No divine guidance here.

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

I don't know, why don't you follow my steps with evidence and simply show it's true rather than ask what I think about it? Here's what I see:

1) Clearly this is written before the 'event' in question. PASS

2) Is it unambiguous? No. What does 'whole world' and 'all nations' mean exactly?Does this prophesy apply for all times after Jesus? If so, the day after it was not true so FAIL. One week after? FAIL. One year after? FAIL. 2000 years after? Not sure, some nations have come and gone so it is ambiguous. They just recently discovered a tribe in the amazon that had not been previously contacted, so I guess still a FAIL. In other words, at this point in time: FAIL

3) Did it actually come from a god? There is no verifiable evidence of any god or it would be displayed proudly in every thread on this site. FAIL

Final grade: FAIL

Unless you have evidence I'm unaware of ...

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

1) When was this written? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Book-of-Jeremiah

The Book of Jeremiah, also called The Prophecy Of Jeremias, one of the major prophetical writings of the Old Testament. Jeremiah, a Judaean prophet whose activity spanned four of the most tumultuous decades in his country’s history, appears to have received his call to be a prophet in the 13th year of the reign of King Josiah (627/626 BC) and continued his ministry until after the siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC. Many of his oracles concerned the turbulent events of his times.

Result: Inconclusive. Did he write this when he saw the siege coming or after it happened? Which demolition are we talking about? What do you define as 'uprooted' or 'demolished'.

Let's try to be generous here and assume the 'prophet' wrote this down after the siege he lived through and was predicting this would never happen again. Otherwise, if it was before the siege during his lifetime, this already fails.

Wait a second, Jerusalem was again sieged in 70AD! FAIL

2) Is it unambiguous? No. Which siege, what does it mean 'uprooted'/'demolished'. FAIL

3) Did it actually come from a god? There is no verifiable evidence of any god or it would be displayed proudly in every thread on this site. FAIL

Final grade: FAIL

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 think we just did above. So far, they fail.

How about the two mentioned above?

See above, they failed as far as being shown to be prophecies of a god.

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...

Wait, you aren't here to back up your claims? That's both a rule violation and kinda pointless. You claim these are prophecies of a god and can't be bothered to back that up with any evidence? Why are you arguing this then?

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...

Empty assertion. See above.

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?

The point is, I don't really know why they wrote down what they did. YOU are the one claiming these are actual prophecies from a god. I'm just giving natural explanations that make sense. Do you not think people write down all kinds of things? Including things that aren't true? Do you know what the category 'fiction' means? You should check it out, lots of great literature that is not real, but makes for a fun read. None of it inspired by an invisible creature.

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...

When you actually provide some evidence other than the documents you pulled the prophesies from, we can talk.

The coherent answer has already been provided. People write down all kinds of stuff. It's YOUR job to show these are prophecies from a god since it is YOU making this claim. You already said you're not going to bother. So, not sure where to go from here.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 61 by Tart]

Zeus, you mean Dyeus or Deus?
The father of JeZeus or Jesus?

I think you would be interested in the Delphic prophesies. They often came true and are part of the fascination with "The 300," or the Battle of Thermopylae.

Delphic or Apollonian prophesy have a long history of accuracy.

Hello willum, yes this pronunciation thing, that you claim Romans created God, i actually mentioned in the original post... Now do you have any evidence backing this up, or did you purely create this in your head?

I never claimed the Romans created "God." God (Godt) is based on an archaic German word for "Chief," someone who was definitively a human.

Are you seriously claiming that Deus, Dios, Dio, Dieux are NOT derived from Dyeus/Zeus and Juptier (Dyeupater)?

Though,even so the Romans took Zeus from the Greeks and etc..

So, when you worship "God," as a name it shows only that you worship a tradition that began by giving homage to men that primitive peoples venerated as divine.

Of course when one venerated Dios, et&al you are venerating the name of the Greek-Roman deity.

We have shown that Jove is pronounced Yahweh.
Jesus is supposed to be Joshua, and there is no reason not to call him by that name.

At every turn you either have a god-king or Roman source for the thing you worship.

So who are you really worshiping?
How do you explain that?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 81 by Divine Insight]

When they call Jesus "the Lamb of God", that is meant to suggest Jesus fulfilled the law of the blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin, once and fro all...

Ok, that makes far more sense. But that wouldn't be any reason to change the laws. That would just change how we would be forgiven for our sins.

But also don't you see a problem with this?

Doesn't this religion hold that the wages of sin is death? Not that we need to sacrifice a lamb to God. In fact, if the wages of sin is that we simply need to sacrifice a lamb to God then this would be saying that it's perfectly ok to commit sins as long as we are willing to kill a lamb to pay for the forgiveness of those sins.

The idea that God would be willing to forgive our sins simply because we are willing to kill a lamb for God's sake doesn't really make any sense does it?

It certainly doesn't make any sense to me. Why should we be forgiven our sins for having made a blood sacrifice of one of God's animals? That would be no skin off our nose. Paying for the forgiveness of sins would be pretty easy. Especially for anyone who happened to be in a position where it was easy to find lambs to sacrifice.

This would also be unfair for people who had no way to obtain a sacrificial lamb as well. So this ancient Old Testament religion already reeks of irrational superstitious beliefs. Why should we believe that some God would forgive us our crimes simply because we were willing to kill a lamb and offer the dead body up to God?

So this idea already makes no sense in the Old Testament.

And now if we are going to hold this same idea up where Jesus is being offered freely to everyone as their "sacrificial lamb" to God, then this would basically be saying, hey, it's totally ok to sin since your sins have now been paid for. So forgiveness is now "Free".

Finally, how does this amount to "justice"? Where is there any justice in freely forgiving criminals simply because they accept Jesus as their "Sacrificial Lamb"?

How does that amount to "justice"?

This would then be a religion that has tossed the concept of "justice" out the window entirely.

So the idea that Jesus is a "Free Sacrificial Lamb" offered to us to pay for our sins makes no sense at all really.

This is clearly a religion that grew out of very ancient beliefs that Gods need to be appeased via blood sacrifices. But that actually never made any sense. It was never anything more than a truly weird human superstition.

Why would an intelligent God forgive you of your sins if you are willing to make a blood sacrifice of an animal to him?

Do you really think that makes any sense?

Great question DI... Does it make sense to sacrifice a Lamb for forgiveness? It certainly does not make sense.. It is bizarre.... absurd... In fact, i dont think a lot of the Old Testament makes any sense.. That is without Jesus as the Cornerstone, and the Messiah, the Old Testament is nonsensical...

Why in the heck would God call for blood sacrifice? Why the "Passover" from the blood of the lamb? Why Abraham sacrifice of Isaac (his "only begotten son")? Why any of this? Judaism is absurd... But it was Jesus, who was called the "Cornerstone", as if he is the essential building block for Judaism. It was Jesus that made sense out of Judaism, which points to Jesus. When Jesus demonstrated the righteousness of God by laying down his life for sinners, while forgiving those killing him, he made perfect sense of the blood sacrifice...

Jesus was a piece of the puzzle that completed the picture... It is built on Jesus, as a Messiah who came to fulfill Gods plan, which included fulfilling the law and the prophecies. To complete Gods picture... I know you struggle making sense out of Christianity, but it does make sense to me... And if this was Gods plan, and demonstrated prophecies fulfillment, perhaps you should allow you reasoning to be open to Gods foolishness...

And Justice is certainly important... So i see many atheist suggesting that Hell and Gods judgement is cruel. Iv even saw some who say if you condemn Hitler to an eternity of hellfire, that would be immoral...

How do you feel about that?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 78 by Tart]

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

That's a funny one. Think about it Tart. You and other believers of that "prophecy" are going around preaching the gospel of the kingdom...thus making it a self fulfilling prophecy.
Are you sure the reason that this prophecy became "true" isn't because you guys thought you had to actively make sure it came true?
Jesus: This gospel will be preached everywhere
Christians: Well guys, get out there, start preaching! Jesus commands it!
Tart: Wow! Prophecy fulfilled!

Is this really the bar you want to start off with? A self fulfilling prophecy, one that likely wouldn't have been "fulfilled" if followers like yourself hadn't actively made sure it was?

Yes, I am impressed with a prophecy from a man with 12 Disciples (who by the way, was put to death and discarded as a criminal), in a little corner of the world, could accurately predict this...

And notice, when atheist claim that these are "self fulfilling prophecies", they have to claim that, no matter how unlikely the odd would be for a prophecies fulfillment, because they recognize the prophecy is being fulfilled.

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

I will accept this...if you explain how this makes sense considering Jeremiah would have written this centuries BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem during the Jewish rebellions of the 70s AD.
And also explain how the fact that Jerusalem existing today somehow validates the claim that, going forward, it will never be demolished, even beyond the year 2018 AD. Do you see the future, Tart? What knowledge do you have about Jerusalem and its status in the years to come?
I can agree with you that Jerusalem exists right now...but how can I agree with you that it will never be demolished (again)? I can't see the future. For all we know, a war breaks out and it gets destroyed next year.

If you want to question truth becuase we dont know what will happen in the future... Then everything is out the window, including science... How can you prove to me anything will happen in the future?

And you are talking about an event, in 70AD, that was Prophesied! Jesus accurately prophesied about this event.. Just like the destruction was prophesied from Babylon, like this is Gods plan, just like a city like Jerusalem was prophesied to never be demolished..


Which, by the way, the odd of a tiny little city like Jerusalem, never being demolished from around 600BC, to now, is extremely low... It is beating the odd of even existing at this point...

How would you like to explain the prophecies fulfilled in the New, from the Old? Would you like to look at specifics?

I've explored this topic before with other people. Each and every one of them has failed. I've already given you a clear example in this thread, Micah Chapter 5 verse 6. Christians like to cite verse 2 as a prophecy being fulfilled by Jesus...but they ignore verse 6, which talks about how their messiah will be their peace and they will raise up military commanders who will rule Assyria, that their messiah will protect them from the invading Assyrians.

Well i think its clearly talking about the Messiah in verse 2. And even claiming a person will be their peace, in verse... However verse 6 is unclear...

But maybe you can explain your take on it? How do you make sense out of this prophecy, and the rest?

(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

I don't know about benchwarmer, but I'm willing to get down to the nitty gritty. I've done so before and won Every. Single. Time.

How about the two mentioned above?

How are they miraculous, divine prophecies when all it took for them to come "true" was for religious believers such as yourself to do the work of making sure they came "true"?

Ok.. So you believe ALL the prophecies are self fulfilled by religious zealots? Or only some of them? Like that of Jerusalem never being demolished (accept when God allows and prophecies about), you think that was self fulfilled by believers? Even though all of Rome couldn't fulfill with for their selves...?

Do you think that is unlikely, or just as easy to predict rain fall when its gloomy?

people created prophecies about a Messiah.. Some claiming dates of the Messiah, some claiming the crucifixion, some claiming about events during his life, etc

Here's the rub. Check your prophecies, what do they say?
Then check where it's claimed Jesus fulfilled these prophecies. What does THAT say?

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?

Pretty easy to make up a messiah whom people say fulfilled prophecies. I mean, it's not like you're going to supply anything other than Christian texts to show us that Jesus actually fulfilled anything, is it?

Ok, so you believe zealous Christians, who believe in Jesus and His message, are self fulfilling prophecy like spreading the message to the entire world. You believe. You also believe the prophecy about Jerusalem is just self fulfilling? Even though Jews/Christians have lost that land many times in history?

And you also believe that the Disciples (or someone, you werent clear) completely made up the Messiahs fulfillment?

Do you think they fabricated all of the Messiah fulfillment? Or just some of them? Do you think Jesus is entirely a fiction character created to fulfill prophecy (and do you have evidence for this wild claim)? Or that Jesus really existed, and just happened to fufill some of them, like a coincident, but didnt fufill them and and they forged the rest...

Or something?

What exactly do you believe?

Where none of the prophets knew any of the witnesses

Who are these witnesses? Do we have anything from them?

Here are some claimed prophecies, written hundreds of years before Christ, identified as prophecies by the disciples and the falsified its fulfillment

That's a good possibility, yes.

"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

I don't recall, even as a Christian, hearing anything about Jesus being crushed. This passage is vague. Pierced? How, where? How do you know that the bit about being healed by his wounds came true? Does it mean that once Jesus was wounded, people didn't suffer injuries or sickness? Or is it referring to something else, something that you cannot point to empirically?

Well, you can read what the disciples said about Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb, crucified, with piecing nails, and crushed with grief, for our forgiveness...

It certainly makes sense.. But maybe not for you becuase you reason aesthetically.. But that is expected.

"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

Read verses 5 and 6. Not just verse 2. Plus it says it itself. Bethlehem Ephrathah is a clan, not the town of Bethlehem. Also, when did Jesus rule over Israel? He was never the ruler.

We believe Jesus was a ruler, and that he was our peace... Id suggest reading the explanation in the epistles.

"25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes,

I suppose you're unaware that this Daniel, whom you think was knowledgeable about the future, got the conqueror of Babylon wrong? It may be news to you to learn that it was Cyrus the Persian who conquered Babylon, and not as Daniel says, Darius the Mede.

I am not aware, ill let you provide verses and evidence..

However, it is clear he is prophesying about a Messiah here... So how do you make sense of the prophecies? You think Daniel said this in chapter 9, maybe as a flat out lie? Like a very specific lie for something to happen 600 (or so)
years in the future? And then the dicples forged its fufilment?

Or something?

How do you make sense of it?

As to what you are referring to above: which word? Which order to restore and rebuild Jerusalem? I'm aware of several orders, none of which line up neatly with Jesus.
Also...when did Jesus do this?
"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"
What did Jesus do at the temple that was an abomination? About the only thing I can recall him doing at the temple is chasing out the money lenders, but I wouldn't call doing that an abomination...would you, Tart? Would his doing that have caused desolation?

No, i think this is referring to Saint Stephan and his stoning.

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

Thus meaning that any action attributed to him in your chosen religion is automatically the best action. Your metric for what is the best action merely requires that the action be done by God, whereas benchwarmer, myself and others think along the lines of effectiveness, amount of harm caused or avoided...things like that.

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

So thus, you cannot even fathom the possibility that what is from God (in your eyes) might just might not actually be from him. You won't even think about that. These just are, flat out.

Because the explanation the disciples gave, is rock solid

I'm not aware of ANY writings from ANY disciples.

Yes, so the New Testament was written by disciples... You disagree?

Listen... I understand you doubt, but im looking for a coherent explanation for the evidence we are talking about.. Something that can make sense, and perhaps explain all the prophecies (including those about a Messiah, and those that are about other things), and the witnesses testimony...

To make sense of the evidence, and not just throwing mud in the water to discredit and doubt...


How do you make sense out of Christianity?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 61 by Tart]

Zeus, you mean Dyeus or Deus?
The father of JeZeus or Jesus?

I think you would be interested in the Delphic prophesies. They often came true and are part of the fascination with "The 300," or the Battle of Thermopylae.

Delphic or Apollonian prophesy have a long history of accuracy.

Hello willum, yes this pronunciation thing, that you claim Romans created God, i actually mentioned in the original post... Now do you have any evidence backing this up, or did you purely create this in your head?

I never claimed the Romans created "God." God (Godt) is based on an archaic German word for "Chief," someone who was definitively a human.

Are you seriously claiming that Deus, Dios, Dio, Dieux are NOT derived from Dyeus/Zeus and Juptier (Dyeupater)?

Though,even so the Romans took Zeus from the Greeks and etc..

So, when you worship "God," as a name it shows only that you worship a tradition that began by giving homage to men that primitive peoples venerated as divine.

Of course when one venerated Dios, et&al you are venerating the name of the Greek-Roman deity.

We have shown that Jove is pronounced Yahweh.
Jesus is supposed to be Joshua, and there is no reason not to call him by that name.

At every turn you either have a god-king or Roman source for the thing you worship.

So who are you really worshiping?
How do you explain that?

Willum, so you were told to start providing evidence for your claim, and that you might get warnings for claims with no supporting evidence...

Can you give evidence for exactly how the Romans would have pronounced the words you are talking about? Because I only speak English ()and i assume you do too?). And can you give evidence they created Jesus, all based on this pronunciation problem?

[Divine Insight]

Great question DI... Does it make sense to sacrifice a Lamb for forgiveness? It certainly does not make sense.. It is bizarre.... absurd... In fact, i dont think a lot of the Old Testament makes any sense.. That is without Jesus as the Cornerstone, and the Messiah, the Old Testament is nonsensical...

Why in the heck would God call for blood sacrifice? Why the "Passover" from the blood of the lamb? Why Abraham sacrifice of Isaac (his "only begotten son")? Why any of this? Judaism is absurd... But it was Jesus, who was called the "Cornerstone", as if he is the essential building block for Judaism. It was Jesus that made sense out of Judaism, which points to Jesus. When Jesus demonstrated the righteousness of God by laying down his life for sinners, while forgiving those killing him, he made perfect sense of the blood sacrifice...

Jesus was a piece of the puzzle that completed the picture... It is built on Jesus, as a Messiah who came to fulfill Gods plan, which included fulfilling the law and the prophecies. To complete Gods picture... I know you struggle making sense out of Christianity, but it does make sense to me... And if this was Gods plan, and demonstrated prophecies fulfillment, perhaps you should allow you reasoning to be open to Gods foolishness...

And Justice is certainly important... So i see many atheist suggesting that Hell and Gods judgement is cruel. Iv even saw some who say if you condemn Hitler to an eternity of hellfire, that would be immoral...

How do you feel about that?

I'm very glad that you reiterated this common Christian Theological Apology. This apology is certainly nothing new, this has been a very common apology for decades, if not centuries.

And I would be very glad to tell you how I feel about it.

I feel that it is an absolutely absurd apology.

Why?

Well, because in order for this apology to be true this would then mean that the entire Old Testament would make absolutely no sense to anyone until the time of Jesus. This would then mean that for thousands of years prior to Jesus all the people who were following this religion were being given erroneous instructions. They were being told that they could make blood sacrifices of mere animals to obtain forgiveness for their sins.

In short, for this apology to make any sense at all, then the entire Old Testament would basically need to have been a lie, because all it would have amounted to was metaphorical analogies relating to Jesus (a man or demigod that wouldn't even be born for thousands of years) that wouldn't have made any sense at all to anyone who had lived prior to Jesus. It also would have been giving all those people totally incorrect and false information because those people would have been taking all these abstract metaphorical analogies literally, knowing nothing at all about Jesus or the claims that would be made about him.

So I reject this apology for the New Testament and Jesus as clearly being necessarily wrong. It's basically an attempt to totally discredit the entire Old Testament in favor of "Saving Jesus", the New Testament and Christianity.

So to be perfectly honest with you I can't imagine how anyone could buy into this apology. It's obviously an attempt to reinterpret the Old Testament with the sole purpose of saving Christian theology at the expense of discrediting the entire Old Testament.

And like I say, this is not a new apology. I've been aware of this apology for this religion from the very beginning. In fact, I was actually aware of this apology back when I was still a Christian. I realized it's problematic fallacies even back then.

So now you know how I feel about this specific apology.

It's just not going to work to try to claim that the Old Testament wasn't speaking truth to the people before the appearance of Christ, and was only speaking in terms of abstract metaphors that were actually referring to Christ.

That just doesn't work at all.

My question to you would be to ask how you could accept such an obviously flawed apology for Christianity?

[dianaiad]

Willum, so you were told to start providing evidence for your claim, and that you might get warnings for claims with no supporting evidence...

Can you give evidence for exactly how the Romans would have pronounced the words you are talking about? Because I only speak English ()and i assume you do too?). And can you give evidence they created Jesus, all based on this pronunciation problem?

Moderator Comment

If you believe that someone is breaking the forum rules, please report that post to the moderators rather than commenting on them yourself.

Please review the Rules. (Rule 17 applies here)


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 95 by Tart]

Willum, so you were told to start providing evidence for your claim, and that you might get warnings for claims with no supporting evidence...

Can you give evidence for exactly how the Romans would have pronounced the words you are talking about? Because I only speak English ()and i assume you do too?). And can you give evidence they created Jesus, all based on this pronunciation problem?

No, no, no Mr. Tart, you conflated two of my arguments, and the proofs respectively.
How many times must I show just how Jove and Jesus are pronounced?

Here it s again:
How to pronounce Jove
How to pronounce Jesus
God


The other assertions I made, I backed up - Rome was the Canon source of the Bible sometime after Constantine, 313 CE, as a matter of fact. That you aren't reading my posts is not a cause for complaint.
History of Catholic Church

And my evidence of Jesus being a created fiction, though supported by names, COMES FROM THE BIBLE ITSELF:
Verses I have quoted many times: Matthew, Romans and so on, support Rome, though it is a pagan government, something no Judaic scripture COULD. Were Jesus real he could not so much as recommend the Jews TOUCH the tribute coins, much less pay them. For this, I further cite the COMMANDMENTS, against graven images and other gods.

Now you have made tonnes of claims. Why are yours better than mine? And why don't you have to demonstrate proof?

Now kindly participate in the conversation, other than by asking for proof.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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

My belief is dependent on the evidence, and subject to change according to the evidence.

What exactly do you consider "evidence?" Are your examples of "evidence" really nothing more than insupportable assumptions and assertions? Openly list your "evidence" so that we might all examine it together.

I am willing to indulge the assertion that Jesus actually existed, by the way. I will not resort to making the argument that Jesus never existed.

[Don McIntosh]

[Replying to post 58 by Don McIntosh]

et in addition to explaining the emergence of evil, Christian theology posits a comprehensive solution to the problem of evil, one "built in" to the creation from the beginning.

Except this would require that evil be part of creation right from the very beginning...

Close. If it's true that moral freedom is required for human flourishing, and that moral freedom entails the ability to freely decide between good and evil, a creation featuring human flourishing would logically require the potential or possibility of evil. The sticking point, I think, is where Plantinga says this: "A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all."

I agree with Plantinga here, while some people disagree. There have been times (particularly when I'm suffering a deep depression or hardship) when I disagreed with him myself. But it certainly doesn't seem self-evident to most people, most of the time, that an existence without any moral freedom (to love others, for example), let alone sheer non-existence, would be preferable to an existence as a free moral agent with the associated risk of committing or suffering evil.

Regardless, the argument of evil assumes a burden of proof it apparently cannot meet, in that it sets out to show that the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God is strictly, logically incompatible with evil.

If I build a computer for you, and say that the operating system has anti-malware software built into it, buuuut, the software doesn't kick in until two years from now...is that a solution at all? Or effective?
(Notice that the entire concept of building computers with anti-malware only makes sense in a world that already has malware. There'd be no need for anti-malware software like Avast if we existed in a world where no malware has ever been written)

That's an interesting, relevant analogy, and I commend you for thinking of it. Part of the problem with the theological parallel is that God is not just in the business of eradicating evil from the world – as one might eradicate unwanted malware from a computer – but redeeming morally free beings (us). And as morally free beings we have unfortunately become willingly infected with sin, to the point that many of us would fight anyone who tried to remove it. Arguably, if God immediately eradicated all evil he would destroy all of humanity in the process and no one would be redeemed.

Turn around...? Like what...it's been proven to us to our satisfaction that the "solution" you guys tout is true?
What exactly do you mean?

What I mean is that Christian theology posits not only the introduction of evil into the world through sin but the final defeat of evil in the eternal kingdom of God. It's not consistent to say that on Christian theology, God is actually responsible for the harsh reality of evil in the world, and in the same breath to say that heavenly reward is mere wishful thinking because Christian theology is not true. This would be a little like saying a contract is void because the offer in Section A does not disclose the terms of agreement, and then refusing to acknowledge the terms of agreement in Section B because the contract is void.

Very well then. Tell me the point of a child suffering from bone cancer and dying.

There's not a point to be made there as much as a tragic lesson that most of us have trouble learning: "The wages of sin is death." That's not just death for you or me, but death unleashed on those around us. If evil is senseless and irrational, and evil derives from sin (violating the law of God), then we should turn away from sin and toward God, who alone has power to heal, restore, and ultimately make all things right. In other words the sight of evil and suffering should lead us to repentance.

Tell me what's worse: a child first suffering and dying from bone cancer, or simply no children, period.

Tell me the point of being able to rationally reflect on the evil of a child suffering from bone cancer and dying.

Tell me what's "evil" about a child suffering from bone cancer and dying, given an amoral material universe governed by natural selection.

Should there even be a battle between good and evil at all? I say no, I say that if the all powerful God is good/benevolent, he wouldn't have allowed evil to even exist in the first place. He wouldn't have allowed the serpent into the garden at all.

It's like saying you have a magic button that when pushed can defeat any and all evil forever...and you've been sitting there holding the button for thousands of years, all the while everyone else has been out battling the forces of darkness and suffering all sorts of losses.

Honestly I appreciate the intuitive and emotive appeal of this objection.

Powerful as it is on an emotional level, though, it doesn't hold logically. Again, it's simply not a self-evident truth that non-existence or an existence of arbitrary or programmed happiness (whatever "happiness" means exactly) is a greater good than the freedom to risk experiences of suffering (along with love, joy, adventure, pleasure, etc.).

If right now you could elect to undergo a new type of brain surgery that would make you always, unfailingly happy, even if that meant the loss of your will to think and reflect and emote in other ways, would you do it? If you were to find out that jellyfish were somehow chemically predisposed to feel really great all the time, would you rather be a jellyfish? And to your analogy, would you push the magic button? Would any of us survive you pushing the magic button?

Look at it this way. God's creative work is still underway. In Scripture there's not just heaven and earth, after all, but a new heaven and a new earth. With all its trials and troubles, this world is only the preliminary proving ground in which we are given opportunity to decide what it is we really want. The eternal kingdom of God is the ultimate prize in view.