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

[William]

[Replying to post 112 by Don McIntosh]

1. Nature is all that exists.
2. Nature is neither good nor evil.
3. Evil exists.

Pick any two. Smile Given naturalism there is essentially no place for evil in the universe, so that what we describe as "evil" is merely an unfortunate by-product of biological evolution. Hinduism, for another example, regards evil as an illusion. Clearly the reality of evil is a problem for a world view that explicitly denies the reality of evil.

Another way is the further development of theodicy. What I have proposed is a "theodicy of incompleteness," basically the idea that the solution to the problem of reconciling freedom and eternal happiness, like God himself, transcends the "system" of the present world. This proposal is, I think, consistent with both logic and Scripture, and is outlined here:...

[yt]1XSvsFgvWr0[/yt]

I think the problem isn't so much any of the above as it is is trying to understand "GOD" through the process of living in this circumstance, and in that, the Christian version fails satisfactorily, even given there are gems. What is any religions holy books without the gems?

The GOD idea of the Abrahamic religions is no more complete than any other religion, or theological philosophy, and comparing Abrahamic theology with Panentheism shows just how incomplete those religions are.

Evil exists as an expression of ignorance.

1. Nature is all that exists.

I assume here that 'nature' refers to the material universe? We cannot know for sure if something outside of that exists, but I am one who is happy enough to included all that as 'nature' if indeed there are more things to experience than the universe.

For sure, at least we have something in which to inform us.

2. Nature is neither good nor evil.

In the minds eye one could stand outside of nature and from that vantage agree to this observation, but if we are to zoom in on human behavior we see something which appears to behave against nature, and possibly understand that as being expressions of ignorance. But where do these expressions become actual expression of evil?
Perhaps one can argue that it is when the ignorance is willful?

Needless to say, in the thick of it humans have decided that such behavior requires laws which promise and deliver consequence, and nature also seems to have a similar system which some refer to as 'karma' - but this is less easy to understand and waiting for karmic justice isn't something overly popular. Humans create laws to fill the gaps. That is nature, and humans are not the only ones expressing social rule.

3. Evil exists.

Yes it does. As do laws. Humans express the evil in willful ignorance and in turning a blind eye etc.

Panentheism understands this as the nature of the beast as it were. A natural enough reaction of consciousness within the physical universe. The evil is that which hurts the conscious individual, but the understanding is misty as to whether the hurt is genuine or fabricated and only the individual claiming so really knows for sure, and they can stay ignorant about that if they wish...whistling a cheery tune to help the distraction from honest introspection.

Such is the nature of consciousness which is of itself, a self referencing system, whether a whole GOD or infinite pieces of a whole GOD. Obviously both and all will have their 'point of view' in which to self reference. Naturally enough.

What creates the reaction of self referencing requires two items, as it were.

1: Consciousness
2: Things

Often the two are conflated.


If consciousness existed without things, then what it has is just itself. This can be referred to as "GOD" to accommodate the generic.

As soon as GOD creates things, self referencing can occur.

The more GOD creates, the more self referencing can occur.

In relation to this universe, the self referencing is pertinent to that. The universe is neither good nor evil. "What looks large from a distance, close up ain't really that big" as Bob sang.

But "close up" ...that is where we - as that GOD - sees something "different"... and the experience is revealing for that.

We react as nature dictates, self referencing. Then we make our individual choices, and the larger reality we are unavoidably connected with learns through our experiences (our collective experience) how it will proceed - because our experiences are It's way of self referencing. Also, unavoidably, that information is looped back to us and we learn by that.

At some point the experience of evil forced us to acknowledge that there are some places we do not wish to go...the irony in that, is we have no choice but to accept that we are here already, so it is too late for wishful thinking.

Evil exists.

So then we try to understand a GOD who has no evil, and force this GOD to be separate from us and our evil, while also attempting to be good about it.

It is not a bad reaction to have, because we are better when we understand "GOD" as good. The problem is that we do not altogether understand 'good'.

Good exists.

Indeed the self referencing involved with our particular thing (the universe we are in) forces us to acknowledge good and evil exist.

Our downfall in this is that we cannot reconcile a GOOD god with the existence of evil, even when we try to separate that GOD from us, by believing we were created rather than always having ever been parts of that Consciousness called GOD.

This then becomes a false self referencing which can be reconciled only by understanding that when GOD- Consciousness (there is no other) involves itself in situations where both good and evil can co-exist the - natural enough - confusion perpetuates like snow rolling down the mountain...and exposes the reflection seen therein - GOD has the potential to do evil when GOD is falsely self referenced as 'other'.

When one understands that, it is simply a dishonest attempt at self referencing by trying to cut one from the other and throwing the unwanted aside, all the while being cut off from the memory of always having existed because of the curtain a beginning imposes upon the eternal BY that same eternal.

Angels and demons alike fear to tread, but here WE are anyway.

We put our-self here and now We self reference as We each willfully do. Little gods each knowing how we would 'do 'it' if we were GOD.

The feedback loop from that tells our collective mind (The local GOD) how to proceed. Unlike we individuals, who have only our individuate experience to self reference with, the collective Entity has ALL of our individuate experiences to self reference off of.

The information re that, is feed back to each of us, but as to how we each interpret that (and feed it back again ∞) through our expressions into the thing, can only help us in our individual self referencing, however that be for each of us.

Some hear the fed-back information as they do. Others shut themselves off from that as best as they possibly can do - oft the ego is called upon for that purpose - Obviously the better option is to be willfully open and attentive to that, which is why religion/spirituality evolved - but separating GOD from 'evil' and building a throne for 'him' to sit his bum on and be adored, doesn't cut it, any more than pretending GOD is not needed.

If consciousness was not needed in this universe, GOD would not have bothered creating this universe.

Freaking out about it isn't really achieving anything great.

[yt]nheBN2UWAaM[/yt]

[Tart]

Ok benchwarmer, I dont think it is my job to prove anything to you..

Let me get this straight. You wanted to talk about some prophesies. You gave two. I showed them to be a failure. You failed to respond to my points, so I guess you concede I was right?

And now you are circling back to your position of not wanting to prove anything to me. Fine, do you not even want to give it a whirl? At this point, IMHO, I have shredded your argument, you have not taken issue with any of my points against the prophecies in question, and now you are just basically complaining that I will raise doubts. Well of course I will, I have given good reason to do so. You've given nothing.

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.

No, this is not LIKE a debate, it IS a debate. Care to weigh in and give counterpoints or will you just continue to basically complain I don't believe?

What 'mud' have I thrown in the water? Do you mean the facts and questions I raised? Instead of complaining, why don't you simply bring all your evidence to bear and clear up the issue? Is it perhaps because you have none?

I just don’t think your objections against the prophecies given are reasonable, if you’d like I could go through them one by one, but I just want to know what you believe...

Clearly your objections in many cases are based of speculation, like in cases when you think they could have written the prophecy after they witnessed the event... Which you yourself admit you have no evidence of whatsoever... So what evidence led you to believe that? None? That is not a good reason or foundation to establish your beliefs... You guys are the ones who say we should only believe things supported by evidence, right? And “anything without evidence can be dismissed without evidence�.. that is an atheist motto.

So do you have any evidence that any of these prophesies were written after the event? Like what led you to believe that? Or should we concede that any belief without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?

I’m looking for a valid explanation that makes sense out of the evidence...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? Or do you only doubt and have no good explanations that makes sense of your doubt, why these people said false thing?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 114 by Tart]

I don't agree.
They seem to share the same style and much of their words and phrases, as if they came from a master document or were written by the same person.

Two people writing the same material would write it in different ways.

So, simply ascribing different names to them would diminish doubt of anyone who did not inspect them closely, or the gullible, but a careful examination would give rise to the wise questioning those very details.

Hi willum... Can you specify what "style" of writing you are talking about, how you came to the conclusion they have the same "style"... Mind you, im talking about the letters written by Paul, James, John, Peter, Jude...

And identify the the words and phrases you are talking about?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 115 by Tart]

Ok, so there for I dont exist outside of God, neither do my beliefs, and Christ, and Paul, and Peter... And even the religious leaders you talk of, all exist in God... According to you?

Correct.
Ultimately your beliefs in Christianity are inconsequential in relation to that.
You will still have to deal with them as per the different phases you have yet to experience after this one, if you chose to continue believing they are Truth, but ultimately your and everyone's destiny is assured. No one is left behind or regarded as outside of GOD.

If you are saying that Jesus had a contrary message, and that is your belief, then that is what you are being asked to critically evaluate.

Put Christianity on the back burner for now, Im trying to understand what you believe... Do you believe then, that everyone truth is valid, within your understanding of God?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 123 by Tart]

Ah, so once again is boils down to a religious person who is unaware of what their Holy Book actually says, but believes what they think it does. All this time of discussion, and we've been discussing with a floating goalpost.

I recommend you read ToN's post, or save us all a great deal of time by setting down and reading your own Bible:
Bible overlap

[Tart]

[Replying to post 123 by Tart]

Ah, so once again is boils down to a religious person who is unaware of what there Holy Book actually says, but believes what they think it does. All this time of discussion, and we've been discussing with a floating goalpost.

I recommend you read ToN's post, or say us all a great deal of time by setting down and reading your own Bible:
[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 065#932065]Bible overlap[/url

Willum, i have surely read the Bible, and i read it every day. I was simply asking you to expand on your thoughts so we can examine the evidence...

Right now i need to go to class, ill read ToN later...

[William]

[Replying to post 124 by Tart]

Do you believe then, that everyone truth is valid, within your understanding of God?

I don't understand your question. Please elaborate.

[benchwarmer]

Ok benchwarmer, I dont think it is my job to prove anything to you..

Let me get this straight. You wanted to talk about some prophesies. You gave two. I showed them to be a failure. You failed to respond to my points, so I guess you concede I was right?

And now you are circling back to your position of not wanting to prove anything to me. Fine, do you not even want to give it a whirl? At this point, IMHO, I have shredded your argument, you have not taken issue with any of my points against the prophecies in question, and now you are just basically complaining that I will raise doubts. Well of course I will, I have given good reason to do so. You've given nothing.

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.

No, this is not LIKE a debate, it IS a debate. Care to weigh in and give counterpoints or will you just continue to basically complain I don't believe?

What 'mud' have I thrown in the water? Do you mean the facts and questions I raised? Instead of complaining, why don't you simply bring all your evidence to bear and clear up the issue? Is it perhaps because you have none?

I just don’t think your objections against the prophecies given are reasonable, if you’d like I could go through them one by one, but I just want to know what you believe...

Well, a good start would be to explain what you find unreasonable. At this point you are simply making broad assertions with no evidence (specifically about my objections). Basically, your rebuttal to this point amounts to "Na, na, you're wrong!". Care to explain why?

As for "just wanting to know what I believe", this is not the correct forum for that. That would be "Random Ramblings" or "Question for a User". This is a debate sub-forum, so if you don't plan on debating, why are you posting here?

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of what you wrote because you are just singing the same tune over and over. YOU are the one that wanted to discuss some prophecies. I laid out my work. You have done NOTHING.

At this point my only conclusion is that you cannot refute my points, but want to derail the debate in a different direction (like the origins of Christianity???).

How about we focus on the two prophecies that YOU wanted to discuss? So far you've done no discussing, just complaining about how I don't believe.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 126 by Tart]

Willum, i have surely read the Bible, and i read it every day. I was simply asking you to expand on your thoughts so we can examine the evidence...

Sorry, I think most of our mis-contentions are because we both assumed you read and understood the Bible, when, that you do not explains so much of our conversation. As I read your other conversations, with DI, riku, ToN, Willian, benchwarmer and others, in this new light, it also makes these other conversations more clear.

Your policy of asking for proof, then asking for proof of proof, and saying "that is not proof, but my second hand reconstitution of of fairy tales, twice told," IS PROOF, has left me cold.

I have, provided proof, and your claiming otherwise, does not invalidate it. Sorry, you may be using the dialectic, but you do not have the clout of Aristotle.

You have been challenged to provide proof, it is your turn.

[Tart]

Ok benchwarmer, I dont think it is my job to prove anything to you..

Let me get this straight. You wanted to talk about some prophesies. You gave two. I showed them to be a failure. You failed to respond to my points, so I guess you concede I was right?

And now you are circling back to your position of not wanting to prove anything to me. Fine, do you not even want to give it a whirl? At this point, IMHO, I have shredded your argument, you have not taken issue with any of my points against the prophecies in question, and now you are just basically complaining that I will raise doubts. Well of course I will, I have given good reason to do so. You've given nothing.

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.

No, this is not LIKE a debate, it IS a debate. Care to weigh in and give counterpoints or will you just continue to basically complain I don't believe?

What 'mud' have I thrown in the water? Do you mean the facts and questions I raised? Instead of complaining, why don't you simply bring all your evidence to bear and clear up the issue? Is it perhaps because you have none?

I just don’t think your objections against the prophecies given are reasonable, if you’d like I could go through them one by one, but I just want to know what you believe...

Well, a good start would be to explain what you find unreasonable. At this point you are simply making broad assertions with no evidence (specifically about my objections). Basically, your rebuttal to this point amounts to "Na, na, you're wrong!". Care to explain why?

As for "just wanting to know what I believe", this is not the correct forum for that. That would be "Random Ramblings" or "Question for a User". This is a debate sub-forum, so if you don't plan on debating, why are you posting here?

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of what you wrote because you are just singing the same tune over and over. YOU are the one that wanted to discuss some prophecies. I laid out my work. You have done NOTHING.

At this point my only conclusion is that you cannot refute my points, but want to derail the debate in a different direction (like the origins of Christianity???).

How about we focus on the two prophecies that YOU wanted to discuss? So far you've done no discussing, just complaining about how I don't believe.

No no no. I'm asking about what you believe about the Prophesies., which is exactly what we are talking about. I am asking how you make sense out of the Prophesies, why anyone prophesied anything? Why any one falsely said it was fulfilled? I'm asking how you make sense out of the evidence (not nonsense out of the evidence)...

Let me give you an example. As humans living in this universe, that has physical truths that we make sense out of. Why do apples fall to the ground? We don't answer that question saying "I doubt this, this doesn't make sense, and it's not true"... Instead we come up with an explanation of why apples fall to the ground.

Likewise, we live in a universe that has evidence of Jesus being the Christ, and fufilling prophecies..Now if you believe it isn't true, I'm simply asking you how you make sense of that... Out of Christianity... not how you make nonsense out of it...

We are discussing the Prophets and the Prophesies.. You are making nonsense out of the evidence... Like for example, you discredited prophecies, saying something like "Jerusalem will never be uprooted and demolished" saying we don't know the future so we can't know it's true. And you simultaneously say that no prophecy can be trusted if it was already fulfilled and the Prophet might had Prophesied it after they witnessed the event. So we have Prophets (like Jeremiah) you discredited for saying he Prophesied an event after it already happened, and simultaneously discrediting another one of his Prophesies saying it hasnt been fully fulfilled yet.... You don't see how that doesn't make any sense?
I'm simply asking how you make sense out of evidence... You are making nonsense out of it.