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]

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."

So how does this work with respect to the Christian concept of God's "Heavenly Kingdom"?

If you accept Plantinga's position then a heaven where there is no evil would not be as "valuable" or as "free" as the world we currently live in.

So I don't see how Plantinga's philosophical ideas could be used to support a religion that proposes and eternal life that Plantinga would consider to be a valueless state of a perfect heaven where free will to choose evil cannot exist.

So Plantinga's philosophy wouldn't be compatible with the Christian concept of Heaven where no evil choices are permitted. There can be no free will in heaven then, according to Plantinga's philosophy.

Arguably, if God immediately eradicated all evil he would destroy all of humanity in the process and no one would be redeemed.

And would it mean to be "redeemed"?

What would a person need to do to become "redeemed"?

1. Give up their free will to choose to do evil things?
2. To no longer have a desire to choose to do evil things?
3. Other?

If they need to give up their free will choice to do evil things then according to Plantinga's philosophy they will have chosen to live in a valueless world at that point.

If they no longer have a desire to choose to do evil things, then clearly God could have simply created everyone in a state of "redemption" where no one has a desire to do evil things in the first place. So this doesn't work either because God could have simply created people with no desire to do evil things in the first place.

So nothing seems to be working here for Christianity.

We'll need to come up with more options on the list for what it means to be "redeemed".

It can't be that we simply give up our free will choice to do evil things.

It can't be that we simply no longer desire to do evil things.

So what exactly would it mean to be "redeemed"?

Please explain.

[Tart]

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?

Well DI, i understand that you reason aesthetically, but I just dont think your reasoning is very valid....

Judaism certainly doesnt need to make logical sense to you, for people to have believed it... It doesnt need to make logically sense to me either, nor does it even need to make logically sense to the Jews... They could have just simply believed it...

Especially if it is true, that God was living with them and giving them signs that an all powerful God is behind a plan for their lives... This also isnt God lying about anything...

DI... you are alsways using logic and reasoning to establish Christianity as false... Do you have absolute assurance your reasoning is good? What would you base it off of that can establish your reasoning is valid?

I believe God is the basis of knowledge and wisdom and that includes reasoning and logic... Se just like you think God is false becuase you reason it, i believe God is true and i think it is reasonable.. I certainly believe Logic and reason points to Christ.

What could you say to me, that would establish your reasoning is valid and mine isnt?


And... you didnt answer my question about Gods judgement, and hellfire... You were saying justice should be served and God shouldnt just simply forgive something... Do you also believe hell is immoral, or do you think God should serve people justice by judging them righteously and finding, someone like Hitler should be punished?

[Tart]

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.

Ok benchwarmer, I dont think it is my job to prove anything to you.. You are an atheist who will reason atheistically. Any prophecy i show you, you will question and raise doubt, that is your nature of beliefs, it supports your presupposition's, that there is no God behind the Bible... You are more then welcome to your opinion, but dont act as if i need to convince you of anything, we both no you are against being convinced...

This is more like a debate. Where i show what i believe, you show what you believe, as they are rival beliefs... So you can throw mud in the water all you want, and doubt the evidence... This just shows you doubt.

Do you have any evidence to claim that any of these prophecies were written after any event took place, like you reason? Your answer is no, that you just dont know... Do you have evidence that anyone lied... You answered no, you dont...

Do you have any good explanation for the existence of Christianity? That is coherent and gives a comprehensive explanation of the prophets, and the witnesses? Why they falsely claimed things?

Becuase you will take any prophecy i give you, like you just did, and say "this isnt fulfilled because a small island might not have had the Word preached to them"... "this one isnt fulfilled becuase it could have been written after the event".."this one is to ambiguous".. "this one isnt fulfilled because (insert reason here)...


Do any of these support each-other in an all encompassing explanation for the prophets and their prophecies? No... The doubts you are raising dont even support each other... I am looking for a valid explanation that makes sense out of the evidence... Becuase The Disciples have it, and there is no evidence of some huge conspiracy, that doesnt even support its own doubt...

Do you have any good explanation? or do you just want to throw mud in the water with any prophecy i give you, saying whatever meets the need to raise doubt at any given time?

[Divine Insight]

Well DI, i understand that you reason aesthetically, but I just dont think your reasoning is very valid....

Judaism certainly doesnt need to make logical sense to you, for people to have believed it... It doesnt need to make logically sense to me either, nor does it even need to make logically sense to the Jews... They could have just simply believed it...

Especially if it is true, that God was living with them and giving them signs that an all powerful God is behind a plan for their lives... This also isnt God lying about anything...

DI... you are alsways using logic and reasoning to establish Christianity as false... Do you have absolute assurance your reasoning is good? What would you base it off of that can establish your reasoning is valid?

I believe God is the basis of knowledge and wisdom and that includes reasoning and logic... Se just like you think God is false becuase you reason it, i believe God is true and i think it is reasonable.. I certainly believe Logic and reason points to Christ.

What could you say to me, that would establish your reasoning is valid and mine isnt?

If you are determined to refuse to be convinced then there would be nothing I could say to convince you personally. However, I hold that if you and I were to have a real mediated public debate (not just randomly blathering on an internet forum) I could easily convince the debate audience that my points are logically sound and yours are not.

For example, in your above argument you say,

Judaism certainly doesnt need to make logical sense to you, for people to have believed it... It doesnt need to make logically sense to me either, nor does it even need to make logically sense to the Jews... They could have just simply believed it...

But whether or not the Jews believe their superstitious folklore is totally irrelevant to the problem. The real question is whether or not these claims actually came from some God. If we say that they did, then we have a problem that is totally irrelevant of what the Jews may or may not have believed.

In your previous apology you are basically demanding that these ancient claims of making blood sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins did indeed come from God. This has to be the case, because you are claiming that Jesus is then the fulfillment of these previous God-given scriptural metaphors.

So I have shown that your so-called 'logical reasoning" breaks down. The God in your thesis would then have told people that their sins could be forgiven by making blood sacrifices of animals to him.

So your so-called "logical reasoning" defeats itself. In other words, I have shown where this specific apology for the New Testament leads to a logical contradiction.

All you could do at this point is argue against LOGIC.

And all I can say is, "Good luck with that".

And... you didnt answer my question about Gods judgement, and hellfire... You were saying justice should be served and God shouldnt just simply forgive something... Do you also believe hell is immoral, or do you think God should serve people justice by judging them righteously and finding, someone like Hitler should be punished?

What "justice" is served by punishing Hitler?

Since when does more violence justify violence?

What purpose would be served by sending Hitler into a state of eternal torture?

So no, I think it's absolutely ridiculous to think there there is a God who would create an eternal hellfire to "punish" people with physical torture for eternity.

In fact, I think that's the most utterly absurd notion ever created by mankind.

It would serve no purpose at all.

Not only that, but how would you explain Hitler being "saved" by Jesus in his last moments? What if right before Hitler killed himself he turned to Jesus and said, "Please forgive me for I knew not what I had done" and he said this with absolute sincere conviction as a changed man?

Jesus would then need to grant Hitler undeserved salvation as Christianity demands that Jesus freely offers this to anyone who asks for it.

Now you have a forgiven Hitler living in heaven and being rejoiced over for having asked Jesus for free redemption.

You can't rule out that possibility in this religion.

So what happens to the concept of "justice" now that Hitler is having a ball in heaven right next all the victims of the holocaust?

Your assumption Hitler would necessarily be punished isn't a valid assumption. For all you know he could have been saved by Jesus right before he committed suicide.

Christianity most certainly allows for that possibility therefore you necessarily MUST consider it as a possibility in this theology.

Does this then satisfy your criteria for "justice"?

[William]

[Replying to post 65 by Tart]

My belief is based upon Christianity, and the evidences of Christianity.

The so-called 'evidences of Christianity' is varied and not at all a unified thing. Just in that alone one is able to see the evidence is not wholesome.

Q: Why do you base your belief in such evidence?

Of why im convinced Christianity is true? It is based on Biblical explanation.

If 'biblical explanation' is anything to go by, one would expect that all Christianity would be the same. The evidence shows everyone that it is not.

Q: Where do you get this explanation of the bible from?

If you say 'the bible', I again point to the evidence that all Christianity is not the same.
If you say that the 'biblical explanation' comes from a particular sect of Christianity which interprets the bible and explains it a certain way, based on those interpretations, then you are placing your belief and support in that particular sect.

Q: Do you fellowship and receive instruction from any particular sect of Christianity?

Specifically my beliefs were sparked by hearing about prophecy. From there I investigated the evidences by reading the Bible. When i read the New testament, and the epistles, it was clear to me that this religion is true to my life, true to the world around me, and sound reasoning given by the Disciples for the theology of Christianity...

There are many members on this board who argue that no such prophecy exists, and/or that ones interpretation of said prophesy is askew.

There is also the idea of people in positions of power and influence and information can make things appear to be prophetic when what is actually happening is that they claim 'GOD said' and then through the use of their positions. 'make it so'. All that is really required is a clear insight into how people think and what they are most likely to believe, and the position of influence and lots of money.

Generically this kind of manipulation is known as manifest destiny and is purely a man-made device invoking a GOD as being behind it.

Christianity is historical identifiable as a clear case of Manifest Destiny.

One is told something. One sees it come to pass. Thus one believes everything one is subsequently told.

[Q:] You have you seen or being told, which has come to pass, that convinces you Christianity is something to believe in as 'the truth'?

Essentially, there are no 'true Christians' which also doesn't help anyone's case in relation to being convinced 'Christianity' is 'true'.

Well you can believe that as your opinion, but i dont think that opinion of yours is true.

I will remind you that you claimed to use critical thinking in relation to your beliefs.

It is not my 'opinion' I am stating. It if the FACT of the matter. Furthermore, that you THINK what I have pointed out as FACT, is 'not true', doesn't actually help your case in relation to your claim re; using critical thinking to examine your beliefs.

Christianity certainly teaches us that there are "true Christians"and that not everyone claiming to be a Christian is really a Christian. ...

,

Yes - but what of that. The sects all claim to be the 'true Christians' (whatever that even means) but this only goes to strengthen the point of my observations of the truth of the matter.

Jesus warned us against being fake, being hypocrites, and against people who claim to be Christians but are not.

Jesus said no such thing and never once called anyone a 'Christian', so you have placed the cart before the horse with that conflation.

Christianity is something that came along well after the time of Jesus. Indeed, what Jesus did warn his followers was that something posing as being of him would come along and deceive multitudes by using his name as a means to do so.

Now lets call that a 'prophesy' and then see if we cannot put a finger on who these multitudes might be.

There is only Christianity itself which goes around making such claims and Christianity is a huge religious industry and has been for centuries.

One only needs to look at the rise of Christianity apart from Jesus to understand the prophesy Jesus (Yeshua) is said to have spoken, was fulfilled in the rise of Christianity.

This in itself shows plainly that one should wise up and not base their beliefs in Christianity as you say you have. Rather, if one wants to follow Jesus, one is best to leave Christianity behind and have nothing to do with it. If for nothing else, just to be on the safe side.

The problem the individual will have with that, is figuring out exactly which words Jesus actually spoke as opposed to which words Christianity placed 'in his mouth' while it was using his name to deceive the multitudes and creating the bible to sell to the multitudes Jesus warned his followers about.

Q: In what ways have you been critical re your beliefs? Giving your assurance is neither here nor there...

Well this question is a bit ambiguous,...

The question is plain enough. Perhaps it will be your answer which will prove to be ambiguous...

but one key way of being critical might be to look for the evidence. To seek out what others believe about it, to invite all people to discuss what they think about the evidence...

Okay.

Q: What do you think of what I have pointed out already in my reply?

Becuase Christianity teaches us that if Jesus wasnt really the Messiah, and that he wasnt literally resurrected by God, that Christianity is false and is telling lies about God... So... I believe thats true, if Christ wasnt really resurrected, then Christianity is false... I suppose that is kind of critical about the cornerstone of the belief.

As I pointed out, Christianity is the only contender for that thing which Jesus prophesied would happen (re deception of multitudes in his name) therefore one would have to disregard what it teaches and not believe that it was truthful.

There is argument from some members on this board that Jesus as presented by Christianity is not the messiah because his life - as reported by Christianity - does not fulfill all prophesy.

There are also disputes as to how to even interpret prophesy regarding the messiah.

But overall. it can be argued that Jesus wasn't even supportive of ancient Jewish lore and regarded it as no better than he regarded the deceiving Christians who would come in his name. It is all about being led astray, and ones willingness to help that happen.

When one looks into what Jesus taught from the bible, one is left naturally perplexed at some of the conflicting teachings attributed to him.

Just which are made up stories added by Christianity, and which have been left alone to add a sense of the genuine?

The expectancy is that the messiah is supposed to save people from other people who have been leading them astray and ruining the world.

Some of Jesus' teaching clearly states that it is the individuals responsibility to save themselves from that deception, and the more who gather together with this in heart and mind, the better enabled humans will become in relation to that. Together.

Therefore, given the clues we have, we can be pretty confident that the messiah idea is a false god, and GOD expects human beings to save themselves through applying simply but effective measures of deeply honest introspection and commitment to that ideal and in doing so effectively express GOD into the physical environment for the sake of all humankind.

My impression is that the reasoning given in the scripture is sound, and the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, that i have heard from anyone.

I think my explanation for the existence of Christianity outlined in this post, is more truthful. It stands to reason that those at the helm would use their power and influence to deceive those they wish to continue to control for the sake of ensuring human beings put their faith in those influential leaders rather than in each other and just getting about building a great world.

Waiting for a promised messiah to return and do it for them allows the sense of apathy and powerlessness to continue, and the masses to remain segregated and at odds with each other and controlled by godless manipulators.

What is you observation that hasnt been responded to that convinced you Christianity is wrong?

There are many. I have outlined one in particular in this post.

I created a thread [Near Death Experiences of Christians and others.] and invited Christians and others to comment and argue their positions on the matter. Only one did so to any extent. The others have ignored it.
Even the one who did engage for a time, fled the thread when it was pointed out the discrepancies in her beliefs and arguments on the matter.

Personally, when you claim Christian "not very well thought through.", I dont think you understand it, and i dont think your beliefs are very well thought...

What beliefs? I am happy to engage with you on this assertion. Are you up for that?

Q: Have you ever experienced OOBEs or NDEs?

Not really.. Only one time OOBE when i was fasting.

You do not seem to be quite sure. Please explain what happened and why you think you had an OOBE.

I have, but likewise you are unable to enter my memories and experience what I have, for yourself.
Nonetheless I am utterly convinced as well, that these are genuine alternate experiences.
Apart from Christians who have had these experiences, most Christians I have encountered are dubious as to - shall we say 'the hand of GOD' - being involved and usually assign 'demonic deception' to such events, if for no other reason than to avoid what might be learned therein which conflicts with doctrinal beliefs.

Well i was talking about Christianity and it as the Truth...

And what of that, in relation to OOBEs and NDEs?

Q: What does your particular version of Christianity have to say about this and why should I believe it?

About what? Out of body experiences?

Yes.

I dont think they talk about it...

Who are they?

However they do talk or spiritualism, witchcraft, and sorcery... Saying these things are misleading you.

What has that got to do with OOBEs and NDEs that an 'however' is required?

And tell me, you believe in panentheism right? What is YOUR evidence, and how is it stronger the Christianities?

Panentheism isn't something to believe in. It isn;t a religion, but a way of veiwing everything through the lens of unification - seeing how everything, including Christianity fits into everything else. It also does not place GOD as separate from humans, as do all the Abrahamic religions. Rather it identifies human consciousness as an aspect of GOD consciousness, which is a very important idea oft suppressed by Abrahamic doctrines.

Panentheism does not have or need enemies or antagonists and villains in order for it to continue. Christianity cannot survive without those things. Big difference right there.

Well, something being true, like Christianity isnt dependent on my faith, but on the objective nature of the claims of Christianity, like Jesus as the Messiah.

Conflating faith as being evidence does not make faith evidence.

So how do YOU know God exists?

Consciousness exists. That is how I know. My own subjective experiences confirm this. OOBEs as well. Only GOD isn't what you as a Christian believe GOD to be.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 103 by 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.

Let's begin with a description of "wishful thinking."

Wikipedia
Wishful thinking
Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief and desire.[1] Studies have consistently shown that holding all else equal, subjects will predict positive outcomes to be more likely than negative outcomes (see unrealistic optimism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that when you die an invisible part of you will go to an invisible place to reside with invisible Beings. Do you see how this corresponds to believing in something that is pleasing to imagine but does not correspond to any actual evidence, rationality or reality? Such a belief is entirely made up and imagined to be true because it is pleasing. Therefore such a belief corresponds exactly to wishful thinking.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 103 by 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.

Let's begin with a description of "wishful thinking."

Wikipedia
Wishful thinking
Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief and desire.[1] Studies have consistently shown that holding all else equal, subjects will predict positive outcomes to be more likely than negative outcomes (see unrealistic optimism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that when you die an invisible part of you will go to an invisible place to reside with invisible Beings. Do you see how this corresponds to believing in something that is pleasing to imagine but does not correspond to any actual evidence, rationality or reality? Such a belief is entirely made up and imagined to be true because it is pleasing. Therefore such a belief corresponds exactly to wishful thinking.

Actually, i never believed in Heaven until Christianity was proven to me.. The only reason i believe in it now is because Christ, the proof of God, said that we should keep our hope in heaven, and that our reword is not an earthly thing but instead written in heaven... And thats pretty much all i know about heaven... Its certainly an idea i didnt create in my head, and its rooted in Christ, Jesus as the Messiah, which likewise isnt something i created in my head. I believe in heaven because i believe in Jesus, which certainly isnt something I had wishful thinking about.... My belief in Jesus is rooted in the evidence of Jesus... And in fact, i use to think Christianity was unattractive as a philosophy, or theology.. I mean look around... People just dont like Christianity, and i kind of went along with everyone else.. I mean go look for a debating Buddhism site (good luck).. Anything except Christianity is what i wanted.. However my belief became solid after studying the evidence and realizing the truth.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 103 by 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.

Let's begin with a description of "wishful thinking."

Wikipedia
Wishful thinking
Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief and desire.[1] Studies have consistently shown that holding all else equal, subjects will predict positive outcomes to be more likely than negative outcomes (see unrealistic optimism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that when you die an invisible part of you will go to an invisible place to reside with invisible Beings. Do you see how this corresponds to believing in something that is pleasing to imagine but does not correspond to any actual evidence, rationality or reality? Such a belief is entirely made up and imagined to be true because it is pleasing. Therefore such a belief corresponds exactly to wishful thinking.

Actually, i never believed in Heaven until Christianity was proven to me.. The only reason i believe in it now is because Christ, the proof of God, said that we should keep our hope in heaven, and that our reword is not an earthly thing but instead written in heaven... And thats pretty much all i know about heaven... Its certainly an idea i didnt create in my head, and its rooted in Christ, Jesus as the Messiah, which likewise isnt something i created in my head. I believe in heaven because i believe in Jesus, which certainly isnt something I had wishful thinking about.... My belief in Jesus is rooted in the evidence of Jesus... And in fact, i use to think Christianity was unattractive as a philosophy, or theology.. I mean look around... People just dont like Christianity, and i kind of went along with everyone else.. I mean go look for a debating Buddhism site (good luck).. Anything except Christianity is what i wanted.. However my belief became solid after studying the evidence and realizing the truth.

Col. 3:1-4
Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

Did Jesus say all of that? Actually it was Paul who made that statement in a letter a quarter of a century or so after Jesus was dead. Paul never knew Jesus.

It should be pointed out that the "evidence" that you studied (the NT) was produced by Christians precisely for the purpose of convincing people just like you, and the "truth" you were presented with is entirely the result of Christian declarations of what they believe. And what they believe, that a corpse returned to life and subsequently flew off up into the sky, is actually pretty silly.

[Tart]

please, before responding to this post, can you please narrow your response down to 1 or 2 critical points and/or questions... This is getting very time consuming answering like 5 atheists all talking to me with different points...

[Replying to post 65 by Tart]

My belief is based upon Christianity, and the evidences of Christianity.

The so-called 'evidences of Christianity' is varied and not at all a unified thing. Just in that alone one is able to see the evidence is not wholesome.

Q: Why do you base your belief in such evidence?

I believe in the Bible, the explanation in the scriptures given by the prophets and the witnesses, and it seems to me that they were generally unified in their beliefs, yet some opposed them, and some had misguided beliefs in Christianity... But that is everywhere.. People arent unified in scientific beliefs, or political beliefs, or philosophical beliefs, theological beliefs, etc...

This is a poor standard set for Christianity... It is a double standard...

I believe in the evidence, and if the evidence pointed another way then i would believe in where it points.

Of why im convinced Christianity is true? It is based on Biblical explanation.

If 'biblical explanation' is anything to go by, one would expect that all Christianity would be the same. The evidence shows everyone that it is not.

Q: Where do you get this explanation of the bible from?

If you say 'the bible', I again point to the evidence that all Christianity is not the same.
If you say that the 'biblical explanation' comes from a particular sect of Christianity which interprets the bible and explains it a certain way, based on those interpretations, then you are placing your belief and support in that particular sect.

I believe in the evidence, with is rooted in the scripture... Just because other people have different interpretations doesnt mean anything relivant to it not being true... No ones belief makes Christianity true, not mine, not yours, not anyone else...

Christianity would be true if Jesus was really the Messiah, and raised by God from the dead.

Q: Do you fellowship and receive instruction from any particular sect of Christianity?

I have attended and studied with the Methodists, the Jehovah witnesses, The "Church of Christ", the nondenominational, the Messianic Jews, and the Catholics....

I am open to anyone, including atheists agnostics, pantheist, pagans, and anyone else, to come discuss the evidence, and I will let the evidence lead my beliefs.

Specifically my beliefs were sparked by hearing about prophecy. From there I investigated the evidences by reading the Bible. When i read the New testament, and the epistles, it was clear to me that this religion is true to my life, true to the world around me, and sound reasoning given by the Disciples for the theology of Christianity...

There are many members on this board who argue that no such prophecy exists, and/or that ones interpretation of said prophesy is askew.

Well anyone saying there is NO prophecy in the Bible is just flat out wrong. The Bible is profoundly prophetic (unlike anything else... I dont even know of any other religion that has the kind of magnitude of prophesies that the Bible has)... Saying my interpretation of prophecy is askew, when you are basing that off of nothing, is almost like a cognitive bias... Almost like creating a conclusion in your head, of an argument you are unaware of...

There is also the idea of people in positions of power and influence and information can make things appear to be prophetic when what is actually happening is that they claim 'GOD said' and then through the use of their positions. 'make it so'. All that is really required is a clear insight into how people think and what they are most likely to believe, and the position of influence and lots of money.

Generically this kind of manipulation is known as manifest destiny and is purely a man-made device invoking a GOD as being behind it.

Christianity is historical identifiable as a clear case of Manifest Destiny.

One is told something. One sees it come to pass. Thus one believes everything one is subsequently told.

Do you have any specific examples of this?

[Q:] You have you seen or being told, which has come to pass, that convinces you Christianity is something to believe in as 'the truth'?

The evidence revealed to me truth about myself, and about the world around me. That is, our wars, our laws, our sins, lust and our trials, our persecution, our government... Christianity reveals truths about these things, and also personal prophecy as well...

"For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."~Paul

This is a prophetic claim and i know it to be true. And its all based on who the scriptures reveal to us as Jesus, and there testimony of His life (someone i can relate to), and why he has been identified as the Messiah. And there testimony of the Resurrection.

Essentially, there are no 'true Christians' which also doesn't help anyone's case in relation to being convinced 'Christianity' is 'true'.

Well you can believe that as your opinion, but i dont think that opinion of yours is true.

I will remind you that you claimed to use critical thinking in relation to your beliefs.

It is not my 'opinion' I am stating. It if the FACT of the matter. Furthermore, that you THINK what I have pointed out as FACT, is 'not true', doesn't actually help your case in relation to your claim re; using critical thinking to examine your beliefs.

Christianity certainly teaches us that there are "true Christians"and that not everyone claiming to be a Christian is really a Christian. ...

,

Yes - but what of that. The sects all claim to be the 'true Christians' (whatever that even means) but this only goes to strengthen the point of my observations of the truth of the matter.

Jesus warned us against being fake, being hypocrites, and against people who claim to be Christians but are not.

Jesus said no such thing and never once called anyone a 'Christian', so you have placed the cart before the horse with that conflation.

Christianity is something that came along well after the time of Jesus. Indeed, what Jesus did warn his followers was that something posing as being of him would come along and deceive multitudes by using his name as a means to do so.

Now lets call that a 'prophesy' and then see if we cannot put a finger on who these multitudes might be.

There is only Christianity itself which goes around making such claims and Christianity is a huge religious industry and has been for centuries.

One only needs to look at the rise of Christianity apart from Jesus to understand the prophesy Jesus (Yeshua) is said to have spoken, was fulfilled in the rise of Christianity.

This in itself shows plainly that one should wise up and not base their beliefs in Christianity as you say you have. Rather, if one wants to follow Jesus, one is best to leave Christianity behind and have nothing to do with it. If for nothing else, just to be on the safe side.

The problem the individual will have with that, is figuring out exactly which words Jesus actually spoke as opposed to which words Christianity placed 'in his mouth' while it was using his name to deceive the multitudes and creating the bible to sell to the multitudes Jesus warned his followers about.

Q: In what ways have you been critical re your beliefs? Giving your assurance is neither here nor there...

What that there arent real Christians? If i believe there ARE real Christians im not critical in my beliefs?

No, the truth is, is that Jesus surely warned us against hypocrisy, being fake, that we are to do Gods will, be led by the spirit, and Christianity and the teachings of the Bible tell us we are even to test the spirits. John wrote we should test all the spirits and determine if they are truly Gods or not...

In fact, if you take this as critical, i even have to question my own beliefs... Am I really a Christian? I have to question that all the time, because there are some times i go against God, and sin, fall away... However, my belief in Jesus as the Messiah, and the forgiveness of God, and Him raised from the dead is ropck solid because its not based on me, but on rock solid evidence.

So this is like a constant battle, being critical of Christianity and my personal actions and beliefs, yet it continues to pull me toward God and helps me repent and live with the spirit daily.

Well this question is a bit ambiguous,...

The question is plain enough. Perhaps it will be your answer which will prove to be ambiguous...

but one key way of being critical might be to look for the evidence. To seek out what others believe about it, to invite all people to discuss what they think about the evidence...

Okay.

Q: What do you think of what I have pointed out already in my reply?

As far as what the evidence shows? You didnt really discuss any of the evidence, just why you dont believe it. If you want to think critically about the evidence, id invite you to come and make sense out of the evidence... To have good explanations for its existence, and not just discarding it in your own personal doubt.

Becuase Christianity teaches us that if Jesus wasnt really the Messiah, and that he wasnt literally resurrected by God, that Christianity is false and is telling lies about God... So... I believe thats true, if Christ wasnt really resurrected, then Christianity is false... I suppose that is kind of critical about the cornerstone of the belief.

As I pointed out, Christianity is the only contender for that thing which Jesus prophesied would happen (re deception of multitudes in his name) therefore one would have to disregard what it teaches and not believe that it was truthful.

Here is a quote
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock."~Jesus

We should certainly listen to Jesus and build our house on the rock,and be sincere with our beliefs.

There is argument from some members on this board that Jesus as presented by Christianity is not the messiah because his life - as reported by Christianity - does not fulfill all prophesy.

There are also disputes as to how to even interpret prophesy regarding the messiah.

But overall. it can be argued that Jesus wasn't even supportive of ancient Jewish lore and regarded it as no better than he regarded the deceiving Christians who would come in his name. It is all about being led astray, and ones willingness to help that happen.

When one looks into what Jesus taught from the bible, one is left naturally perplexed at some of the conflicting teachings attributed to him.

Just which are made up stories added by Christianity, and which have been left alone to add a sense of the genuine?

The expectancy is that the messiah is supposed to save people from other people who have been leading them astray and ruining the world.

Some of Jesus' teaching clearly states that it is the individuals responsibility to save themselves from that deception, and the more who gather together with this in heart and mind, the better enabled humans will become in relation to that. Together.

Therefore, given the clues we have, we can be pretty confident that the messiah idea is a false god, and GOD expects human beings to save themselves through applying simply but effective measures of deeply honest introspection and commitment to that ideal and in doing so effectively express GOD into the physical environment for the sake of all humankind.

You are throwing away the cornerstone...

My impression is that the reasoning given in the scripture is sound, and the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, that i have heard from anyone.

I think my explanation for the existence of Christianity outlined in this post, is more truthful. It stands to reason that those at the helm would use their power and influence to deceive those they wish to continue to control for the sake of ensuring human beings put their faith in those influential leaders rather than in each other and just getting about building a great world.

Waiting for a promised messiah to return and do it for them allows the sense of apathy and powerlessness to continue, and the masses to remain segregated and at odds with each other and controlled by godless manipulators.

And Jesus warned us against the Pharisees, the religious leaders that do so to abuse power and rule over people... So... Im not really sure the problem here.

What is you observation that hasnt been responded to that convinced you Christianity is wrong?

There are many. I have outlined one in particular in this post.

I created a thread [Near Death Experiences of Christians and others.] and invited Christians and others to comment and argue their positions on the matter. Only one did so to any extent. The others have ignored it.
Even the one who did engage for a time, fled the thread when it was pointed out the discrepancies in her beliefs and arguments on the matter.

Personally, when you claim Christian "not very well thought through.", I dont think you understand it, and i dont think your beliefs are very well thought...

What beliefs? I am happy to engage with you on this assertion. Are you up for that?

Yes, so this would be about the evidences of Christianity. Making sense out of its existence, who it got here, where it came from, and how you make sense out of it being without a god (or not true)... Im not interested in you just doubting, becuase thats expected of anyone who doesnt believe, but instead making sense out of the evidence in a consistent and coherent manner...

And im also interested on YOUR beliefs in God, what you believe and why you believe them.

Q: Have you ever experienced OOBEs or NDEs?

Not really.. Only one time OOBE when i was fasting.

You do not seem to be quite sure. Please explain what happened and why you think you had an OOBE.

Becuase I was looking down at my body, but i could still feel it as i hovered above it... I mean you dont have to believe it, or that it is an OOBE, but thats what i remember.

I have, but likewise you are unable to enter my memories and experience what I have, for yourself.
Nonetheless I am utterly convinced as well, that these are genuine alternate experiences.
Apart from Christians who have had these experiences, most Christians I have encountered are dubious as to - shall we say 'the hand of GOD' - being involved and usually assign 'demonic deception' to such events, if for no other reason than to avoid what might be learned therein which conflicts with doctrinal beliefs.

Yes, so what do you believe about these events? Who did you have them? Are they real, and not hallucinations? and do they point to any significant truth? or to the existence of a God?

Well i was talking about Christianity and it as the Truth...

And what of that, in relation to OOBEs and NDEs?

i dont know, you brought them up. Christianity doesnt specifically name anything like this.

Q: What does your particular version of Christianity have to say about this and why should I believe it?

About what? Out of body experiences?

Yes.

It doesnt say anything. Just warns us against spiritualism, and against disobeying the truth and being saved, which you arent interested in accepting Christ right? Is that because of these experiences?

I dont think they talk about it...

Who are they?

However they do talk or spiritualism, witchcraft, and sorcery... Saying these things are misleading you.

What has that got to do with OOBEs and NDEs that an 'however' is required?

Im not sure... Why are you asking these question of OOBE's, and what does that have to do with the conversation?

And tell me, you believe in panentheism right? What is YOUR evidence, and how is it stronger the Christianities?

Panentheism isn't something to believe in. It isn;t a religion, but a way of veiwing everything through the lens of unification - seeing how everything, including Christianity fits into everything else. It also does not place GOD as separate from humans, as do all the Abrahamic religions. Rather it identifies human consciousness as an aspect of GOD consciousness, which is a very important idea oft suppressed by Abrahamic doctrines.

Panentheism does not have or need enemies or antagonists and villains in order for it to continue. Christianity cannot survive without those things. Big difference right there.

Sure so God (The Christian God) tells us we can have a piece of God within ourselves, with the Holy Spirit. And indeed it does teach us that there are forces that are evil and go against God and His will and His love.

So you dont believe evil exists? Do you believe that, say a murderer or a person who tortures and kills kids for sexual pleasure.. Do you believe that they would be living in a consistent way with your personal beliefs? (given there is no enimies, villian, etc..)

Well, something being true, like Christianity isnt dependent on my faith, but on the objective nature of the claims of Christianity, like Jesus as the Messiah.

Conflating faith as being evidence does not make faith evidence.

So how do YOU know God exists?

Consciousness exists. That is how I know. My own subjective experiences confirm this. OOBEs as well. Only GOD isn't what you as a Christian believe GOD to be.

Ok, so do you have any evidence your God is true? That you can show us?

And (coming back to critically examining the evidence) do you have any explanation that can account for Christianity, how it came to be, where it came from, that just doesnt doubt it, but makes sense of its existence... While supporting "GOD isn't what you as a Christian believe GOD to be"???

[Willum]

[Replying to post 109 by Tart]

I believe in the Bible, the explanation in the scriptures given by the prophets and the witnesses, and it seems to me that they were generally unified in their beliefs, yet some opposed them, and some had misguided beliefs in Christianity... But that is everywhere.. People arent unified in scientific beliefs, or political beliefs, or philosophical beliefs, theological beliefs, etc...

Can you show evidence that the scriptures were given by the prophets or any witnesses?
I mean if you can't I don't see why anyone should believe you.