Why do christians believe in god?

[kilese]

I want to know how, in this modern world, people still worship a god. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't even try to believe it. I see no logic in it at all, to believe in a magical being that lives in the clouds. You can't possibly truly believe in it all. If you do, then humans are more clueless than i thought. Why worship someone who lets children starve everyday? If he has the power to stop it, and doesn't, then he is malevolent. But if he doesn't have the power, he is not a god. And if god created freewill and is omnipotent, then he would already know about all the horrible things in the world that would happen, and could have stopped it. And if he's omnipotent, whats the point of praying? Your prayers would have already been heard. And no one's prayers have been answered, so he is not worth worshiping, and therefore, is not a god. I'm not try to attack anyone, i just can't understand how anyone can believe all this.

[McCulloch]

I know what I know. I know what I don't know. I know what I presume and I know what I don't presume.
When you live in certainty, you have no doubts about it at all.
It is much like finding a treasure. You know for certain when you have found what you are looking for. I searched for the Truth and found it. It is what it is.

I can explain how I know what I know. I will not claim that I am certain about something which defies explanation. I do not mistake the feeling of certainty with reality. Do you?

[Skyangel]

I know what I know. I know what I don't know. I know what I presume and I know what I don't presume.
When you live in certainty, you have no doubts about it at all.
It is much like finding a treasure. You know for certain when you have found what you are looking for. I searched for the Truth and found it. It is what it is.

I can explain how I know what I know. I will not claim that I am certain about something which defies explanation. I do not mistake the feeling of certainty with reality. Do you?

All things have an explanation and can be explained by those who understand them. The only people who cannot explain them are those who have no explanation because they don't understand them.
Example, A child cannot explain how a magician pulls rabbits out of the "air". It obviously defies the logic or ability to explain it in the mind of a child and even when you do explain it to the child, the child may not comprehend what you are explaining if that child is too immature to understand your logic and explanations in the first place. On the other hand the child might understand the explanation but refuse to believe that explanation because they prefer to believe in magic..

Just because a person thinks something defies explanation or refuses to accept the explanation does not mean it defies explanation or there is no explanation. All things can be explained by those who understand them and know how they work.

The trick is to figure out if the person explaining things really knows what they are talking about and whether they are telling you the truth or making up their own theories about how something works which end up being nothing more than a fairy tale. Many adult people believe in fairy tales ( religious and scientific fiction) and think/ believe they are reality.

[bernee51]

Morals and ethics have evolved and are evolving. An aspect of morality at the current stage of evolution is a societal demand for punishment for infringement of defined societal norms.

In what way do you perceive morals and ethics as having evolved? From what to what?

With the evolution self reflective consiousness came the ability to ask the question "Who am I?"..with this also arose the concept of, knowledge of, "the other". This is turn planted the seed for what has become known as the golden rule and thus the evolution of, and continuing evolution of, moral and ethical standards.

Do you think the idea of punishment always existed within the human race or not? If not, do you consider the evolution of humans from beings who once did not punish each other to beings who now punish each other and hurt each other, as progress or a step backwards ? If you see it as progress, do you think humans will get more violent in future?

There is a tendency to see our early ancestors as"just like us only less 'sophisticated'... " when this is far from the truth. We have evolved,and continue to evolve, a deeper level of consiousness, individually and societally.

Early mankind was family group or tribal centric. Any behaviour that threatened the cohesion of the family or tribe was deemed to be unacceptable with the possiblity of some form of punishment or retribution. The god of Abraham, for example, was a tribal god who deemed the "thou shalt not kill." This only applied within the tribe...not to those outside the tribe...as the Midianites found out.

A couple of thousand years ago the Romans marked their conquest with avenues of crucified resistors. Less than a millennia ago it was seen a perfectly normal in European society to hold public executions at which all attended. Only a few hundred years ago it was acceptable to display the heads of executed criminals on pikes over the Thames. Today, in some societies it is seen as acceptable to take vengance on wrongdoers by removing their right to live.

In European and other more evolved societies these practices are no longer seen as acceptable or desirable.

From the observation of societal structures today we can see that humankind has evolved from the tribo-centric, to the city-centric, to the nation state centric, to the global centric and to the cosmocentric because all of these evolutionary levels can still be observed.

Likewise society has evolved (as is still evolving) from the archaic-instinctive, the magical-animistic, the egocentric-exploitive power gods/dominionist, the absolutistic-obedience mythic order"purposeful/authoritarian, the scientific/strategic, the relativistic-personalistic"communitarian/egalitarian on to more integrative systems of societal interaction.

Where does this fit with the OP as to why christians beieve in god...it fits into the absolutist mythic because another way of expressing this level is to "sacrifice self for reward to come through obedience to rightful authority in purposeful Way" and in doing so brings meaning and legitimacy to the believer in the face of the apparent suffering in the world.

[Skyangel]

Is there NO possibility that you are mistaken about anything you believe or think?

If I cannot see any mistakes in my own thinking or logic then I cannot see any possibility of being wrong. It is like doing mathematics. To me 1+1=2 and there is no doubt about it.
Why say there is a possiblity of it being a mistake when you are certain there are no mistakes? Many people simply say " Maybe, I could be wrong." just to appear humble when they don't really think they are wrong at all.

If I realize I am wrong or mistaken about something I will make any corrections needed. If you can prove that I am wrong, please do so but you will have to convince me that I am indeed making a mistake and be able to explain why it is a mistake like explaining the mistake in the maths that 1+1 =3 using facts not theories of any kind.


There is no possibility of truth ever being wrong.
There is however always a possibility of truth being perceived as being wrong by me or by anyone else.
The stories of the bible teach us that reality in the stories of Jesus who was/is the truth, spoke truth and lived in truth and was still perceived as a liar.
The lesson of the story is that truth can appear to be a lie to many people. It all depends on their perception. However no persons perception changes the truth from being the truth.

[Skyangel]

.
Confidence in one's knowledge, ideas and convictions is one thing; "living in certainty" is quite another. I have never encountered a person who had "no doubts" about the questions life presents. How can a person with that attitude learn anything?

I never said I have absolutely no doubts about anything in life. I do have many doubts and question many things. However I have absolutely no doubts about the things I am certain about. I am absolutely 100% certain about many things in life and if you think about it I am sure you will find things you are also absolutely certain about like the fact that one day you will die. Do you have any doubts about that?

Living in certainty does not mean I am certain about everything in life it means I am certain about what I know and also certain about what I doubt. I know what I doubt and why I doubt what I doubt.

[I AM ALL I AM]

It is not those individuals that I am having a discussion with. It is you.

By your definition, what specifically is the 'God' represented within the biblical text ?

Life, Light, Love, Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, Truth, and many more. Do you want scriptures to confirm the bible does indeed describe God in all those ways?

I asked specifically for "your definition", so biblical quotes are not required.

How is it that you have come to equate the 'God' of the bible as you do with "Life, Light, Love", etc ?

What do you think of the 'God' of the bible declaring itself as jealous, etc ?

Are the 'negative' attributes to be disregarded for only those perceived of as 'positive' ?

If so, why ?

There is no "false truth". Either it is the truth or it is not.

When people call lies truth they are being deceived and what they think is truth is not really truth at all, but a deception or a false truth. It is a bit like a forgery of an original article or an illusion. It appears to be truth on outward appearances but when you question it you find it doe not stand up but rather crumbles under pressure. Real Truth remains form and solid.

Hence why I state that there is no "false truth". It is either the truth or it is not.

Your statement of "even if the body has no sensory perceptions" shows your misunderstanding of what being a paraplegic represents. How do I know this, and what experience or knowledge do I have in relationship to paralysis ?

I have personal first-hand experience of being paralysed. I also have the experience of overcoming the physical state of paralysis.

Then your statement of, "Any conscious self aware person understands they are in a body.", is misleading. A "conscious self aware person" can also fully comprehend that the essense of who they are is not housed within their body. Thus, prefacing "conscious self aware person" with "Any" is misleading because it does not recognise a differing comprehension.

There is also a major difference between recognising that you have a body and that you are in a body.

So far you have yet to supply information that provides evidence for the essence of who you are being in the physical body that you control. What you have supplied is opinion based upon preset beliefs of a religious leaning.

Congratulations on overcoming your paralysis.
If you think the essence of who you are is not housed within your body. How do you perceive the essence of who you are and where is this essence of who you are if not in your body?

The essence of Who I Am is ALL THAT IS. Who I Am is an individuated aspect of the totality. The mind and body are tools that I utilise to express Who I Am and interact with other individuated aspects of the totality to experience Who I Am.

It is not necessary for me to leave out the word "Spirit" to have a comprehension of what you are talking about.

It would appear to be pointless to leave out the term as well based upon your description, "Life is the essence of the Spirit of Life.", otherwise we would be left with the phrase, Life is the essence of Life. Although, considering your description, I would have thought that using, The Spirit of Life is the essence of Life, to be accurate in relationship to how it is being utilised.

The way I see it, it can be utilized both ways because life is in life in the sense of the " chicken being in the egg and the egg being in the chicken."

The "chicken ... in the egg" is not the same "chicken" that has the "egg" within it.

Life is still in the physical structure after it has been declared "dead", for the fingernails and hair still grow.

What you appear to be attempting to describe is the essence that animates the physical structure so that it is recognisable as what has been termed "living". This essence has been given different names, from spirit, soul, to Ka (Egyptian for spirit essence), among many others, depending upon the language and societal/religious beliefs.

From what you have described, it appears that you have the belief that the spirit is contained, or trapped, in a physical shell, as if somehow the physical can contain such an non-physical essence.

No, that's not what I believe at all and not how I see it. Life is not trapped in any body. Life is also outside the body and I understand a certain amount of life is still in the dead since it takes life to decompose a body.
All I am saying is that we can perceive life within a body regardless of whether that body is human or animal or plant life. The spirit of life is manifest in the living as well as in dead to those who understand it takes life to decompose a body.
That spirit is in everything and also around everything. We are in life and life is in us. it is not confined in any way. That is what makes the Spirit of Life infinite and eternal. The part of life which is manifest clearly enough for humans to see ought to be enough proof that Life does indeed exist.

If the essence of who you are is not confined to the body, then how can it be "in the body", as you have declared it to be ?

Once again, where is the essence of who you are housed within the body ?

Your choice to do so is not in question. As I clearly stated, "I am questioning your perception of 'God'". The confusion appears to be in your comprehension between me allowing you to choose to believe whatever you choose to, and the belief that I am somehow attempting to change your choice through questioning you.

I will clarify this further. You can choose to believe whatever it is that you so desire, it has nothing to do with me as it is your choice alone to make. This does not stop me from making my choice to question you as why you have chosen to believe as you do. Thus the choice is not in question, it is the reasoning for the choice that is in question, the perception that has led you to make your choice if you will.

Would you please offer evidence to back up your statement that "Truth is circular".

Statements of something do not make those statements true, no matter how much belief you profess in them.

Let's start with any object in nature which you can see and touch and you know is there in reality. Let's call that object "the Truth" simply because it is what it is without a shadow of doubt even if you have no clue what to name it. Someone might come and ask you " what is it" You tell them it is the Truth because it is what it is. They ask you to prove it is the Truth. How do you prove something is what it is?
It is what it is. Can you not see it is what it is? It proves itself and has no need for anyone to prove it is what it is. If you have any doubts that it is what it is then try proving it is not what it is.. It might not be what you think it is but if that is the case the problem would be in the mind of the person who is confused about what they think it is not in the Truth itself. The way people perceive the Truth does not change the fact that it always is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it and regardless of their perception. You begin with Truth and reality and end with Truth and reality, no matter what dance anyone does in the middle trying to figure it out. When you begin with a statement and end with the statement then the statement is circular is is not? Truth makes its own statement " I am that I am" "I am proof of what I am "
Human beings can choose to believe anything they want about it. it still does not change it.

This does not show that "Truth is circular". Is it the only evidence that you have to present to back up your statement ?

I can offer you proof as to why I believe it.

I look forward to reading your reasoning.

I look forward to you asking for my reasoning.

Why do you not believe that Genesis is a literal accounting ?

Because it makes no logical sense to me that mankind was made from the literal dust of the earth. I understand the process of reproduction and logically understand it takes two people to make one person.
I also cannot logically perceive of any literal tree called a tree of knowledge of good and evil with literal fruit on it. Neither can I perceive of a literal talking serpent.
All these things cause me to believe it is a metaphoric story.

If it "makes no logical sense", how do you perceive it to make any sense metaphorically ?

How do you recognise the difference between a literal accounting within the biblical text and a metaphorical accounting ?

I determine whether talking snakes exist in reality or not. I determine whether trees of knowledge exist as literal trees. I determine whether any humans are made from literal dust today and when I understand these things do not literally happen in nature then I recognise they must be metaphoric. Anything that makes sense in a literal way and literally happens in nature today can indeed be regarded as literal. However even literal things in nature have hidden lessons, morals and principles, to teach us if we look at them from all perspectives possible. Therefore nature itself, though literal can still me metaphoric as well. I see literal nature like a living parable which teaches us about life.

You have not perceived all of "reality", unless you have traveled the cosmos, to make such a determination. At most, you can claim not to have experienced these things within the localised "reality" that you have experienced. To do otherwise is to make assumptions.

From what you have written, it appears that you base your determination upon assumptions.

If Genesis is a metaphorical accounting, why do you accept a literal translation of what it states in relationship to your statement, "The word man in the bible refers to mankind plural which includes male and female . It does not refer to just one man. Read Genesis 1: 26-27 and notice the plural words, us, our, them." ?[/b][/color]

I am not taking it literally at all in the same sense that Christians take it literally. From what I understand most Christians perceive the story of the garden of Eden as a story about God literally creating one single man from literal dust and then creating one single woman from that mans rib. They include magic trees and talking snakes in their literal interpretation of the story.

The way I see it Genesis 1 can easily be a story about what is happening on the planet right now. It is a story about life which in principle is the same at the end as it is at the beginning. All things were created in the past. They are being created the present and they will be created in the future. The way I see it, it is an eternal cycle of life.

At no point did I declare that you are "taking it literally at all in the same sense that Christians take it literally".

Once again, if Genesis is a metaphorical accounting, why do you accept a literal translation of what it states in relationship to your statement, "The word man in the bible refers to mankind plural which includes male and female . It does not refer to just one man. Read Genesis 1: 26-27 and notice the plural words, us, our, them." ?

For you are taking a literal translation of the words used in the text.

So you cannot point to this "Spirit of Life" then.

Instead of admitting this, you run around the issue and attempt to correlate the animation of Life with the essence that gives it animation.

Many people think many things, some of those thoughts are obviously delusional. Have you any verifiable evidence to present that shows that your description of the "Spirit of Life" is not delusional ?

I am the evidence of the spirit of life. I am in life and life is in me. I am alive. However, I could just be dreaming that I am alive. That might make me delusional in the opinion of some people.

You are evidence of using the term "Spirit of Life".

Once again, so you cannot point to this "Spirit of Life" then.

If 'Jesus' is not a mythological character then there would be verifiable evidence to support this. For almost two thousand years no one has offered any such evidence. Do you have any verifiable evidence for 'Jesus' being other than a mythological character ?

No, but I prefer to call him a metaphorical character, an example of perfection personified.

How can a "metaphorical character" be "personified" ?

So, whatever claims that are made about the mythological character known of as 'Jesus' in the bible are unsupported with evidence. Which in turn means that claims made about this mythological character have no basis as evidence of your statement, "as in the case of Jesus standing in front of the people who called Him a liar".

My words are also metaphorical when I talk about Jesus. I perceive Jesus and the word Truth as the same thing. I merely use words that are easy to relate to the bible stories to which I am referring. If I said Truth was standing right in front of people, no one would understand what I was talking about. When I say Jesus was standing in front of people, readers understand I am referring to bible stories.
The evidence that these stories exist is in the bible. Any claims regarding Jesus are referring to the claims the bible stories make about Him.
When we discuss literature, the literature we are quoting is its own evidence of what has been written regardless of whether anyone can prove it is true or not. It is what it is.

Hence when you talk about 'Jesus', as you "words are also metaphorical", then they are not literal truth.

What is the point of your metaphorical discourse then ?

As I stated, "Truth is What Is". It would depend upon what you mean by "exists" as to whether your interpretation is an alignment with my statement.

I totally agree that people are in the presence of What Is. Comprehension of What Is varies in the descriptions that individuals apply to What Is, For instance, a christian will stand before a copy of the text known of as the bible and profess to know that it is the 'Word of God'. Another individual that has not been indoctrinated into the religious beliefs of christianity would stand before the text and recognise it without the appellations that the christian has made.

In other words, many will overlay What Is with preconceived ideas based upon their belief system, that may or may not have anything to do with What Is, and is invariably a distortion of What Is, used to prop up their belief system. The difference can be recognised in the language used within the description of What Is. A usual give-away of this is specialised terminology and a lack of being able to give a description without its use.

Do you perceive the bible as " What is" ? If not, how do you perceive it in relation to "What is"?

Your question is nonsensical.

What is the bible ?

It is a collection of writings.

After all, this is a discussion, a debate even, not a crusade to convert 'non-believers' to the christian doctrine.

What makes you think I am trying to convert anyone to the christian doctrine? Why would I want to do that when I perceive most Christian doctrine as false doctrine and do not belong to any Christian religion myself?

The fact that I perceive the bible as the Truth in no way means I see it in the same way Christians do. Most christians still cannot explain or reconcile the apparent contradictions in the bible when asked to do so. That is why they do not impress me one bit.
Personally I do not have any problems with any apparent contradictions in it because I figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day, which although they are opposite do not contradict each other at all.

If you profess to not being a christian, why do you have a belief in the christian religious text known of as the bible ?

There are over 38,000 christian denominations. Many have different views that range in extremes. The one thing that the majority have in common is a profession of belief in the biblical texts, however it is that they perceive that text.

As you have made the claim "I figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day, which although they are opposite do not contradict each other at all", would you please provide prof of your claim by showing how the contradictions in the text below "fit together like night and day" and "do not contradict each other" ?


[center]Leave No Stone Unturned

An Easter Challenge For Christians[/center]

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."

Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.

One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.

I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path, at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples, Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous and we have no original versions.)

But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre (Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday was named.

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:

What time did the women visit the tomb?

* Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
* Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
* Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
* John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?

* Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
* Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
* Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
* John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?

* Matthew: Yes (28:8)
* Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
* Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

* Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?

* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?

* Mark: No (16:13)
* Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?

* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?

* Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?

* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone

[Flail]

Zzyzx wrote:

Is there NO possibility that you are mistaken about anything you believe or think?

Skyangel responded:

If I cannot see any mistakes in my own thinking or logic then I cannot see any possibility of being wrong.

...and therein lies the problem...

[Skyangel]

Zzyzx wrote:

Is there NO possibility that you are mistaken about anything you believe or think?

Skyangel responded:

If I cannot see any mistakes in my own thinking or logic then I cannot see any possibility of being wrong.

...and therein lies the problem...

Why does that pose a problem for you ? Is it because you want to find an error where there is no error?

If I say 1+1=2 and I cannot see any mistakes in that or any possibility of being wrong. Where do you the problem with that statement as applied to that maths? Is it wrong? Could it possibly be wrong? If so please show me where.

[Skyangel]

How is it that you have come to equate the 'God' of the bible as you do with "Life, Light, Love", etc ?

What do you think of the 'God' of the bible declaring itself as jealous, etc ?

Are the 'negative' attributes to be disregarded for only those perceived of as 'positive' ?

If so, why ?

I started questioning the conceot of God at about age 8 -10 from what I remember because back in those days it was compulsory to study religion at school or at least do basic religious studies. That was my first introduction to the concept of God and the bible so I began asking my parents questions and since they were agnostic they basically told me they could not prove God was real and if I wanted to figure it out to keep asking questions and reading up on it and decide for myself. They always encouraged questioning all things. So I did. I began reading the bible and asking many questions to learn the different views people had. To cut a long story short, I came to realize that the professing believers concept of God did not fit in with the description of the God the bible spoke about. A critical reading of the bible will reveal a concept of a God who is both negative as well as positive and can be seen to be both good and evil as in the sense of being jealous and hating some people and even commanding some be killed after commanding people to not kill. It seems very self contradictory does it not? . (Yes, Christian readers, God does hate some people. The bible says so. Let me know if you need scriptural proof. I can prove it to you )

I do not think any of these negative qualities ought to be disregarded at all. neither do I think any positive qualities ought to be disregarded. I think all things should be taken into account when we are searching for the truth of any matter.
The reason is because I think if we discard anything at all it is like throwing away a piece of a puzzle because you dont like the loks of it and by the time you finish throwing out everything you dont like the looks of, you end up with an unfinished picture or a picture with a lot of holes in it and that is how I perceive the God of Christianity. It appears to me their God has lots of holes which they want to ignore and turn him into some kind of sweet marshmellow who gives gifts to all no matter if they are good or bad because he overlooks and forgives and has paid the punishment for the sins of the whole world anyway so all care free from punishment in theory but they really are not unless they believe what the church tells them to believe.

Anyway it seems to me the concept of God in the bible is very much the same as mankind who is also a self contradictory creature when you really think about it.
Reading all the metaphors which God calls Himself and Jesus calls Himself, I came to the conclusion that when you gather then all together, God is much like nature and not just like people. All the same human emotions which can be found in people can also be found in stories about God. Many things and principles which can be found in nature have also been applies to the concept of God in the bible so by the time I put the puzzle together after 40m odd years, I came to the conclusion that the best way to describe God is with the words " I AM " which can be applied not just to people but also to any animal or plant in nature. It is basically a concept which says " I exist" without saying any words at all but just "being". It just is what it is and people can perceive it in many ways but the best way is to look at the whole picture instead of deciding the "elephant" is only the leg that you can "feel" When you take all positive and all negatives into account you end up with a far more balanced view of reality which is all positive and negative even in nature.

[Skyangel]

There is no "false truth". Either it is the truth or it is not.

When people call lies truth they are being deceived and what they think is truth is not really truth at all, but a deception or a false truth. It is a bit like a forgery of an original article or an illusion. It appears to be truth on outward appearances but when you question it you find it doe not stand up but rather crumbles under pressure. Real Truth remains form and solid.

Hence why I state that there is no "false truth". It is either the truth or it is not.

I agree but that does not stop many people from seeing the truth as a lie and vice versa. The fact they do confuse truth is the reason why people get deceived. If truth could not appear to be a lie or vice versa this deception and confusion would not happen, would it?