Lord,Liar or Lunatic

sin_is_fun · Post by **sin_is_fun** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:01 pm

This is one question often asked by believers. "Either Jesus is lord,or liar or lunatic.Which view do you support?"

This question appears downright straight forward.It gives only 3 options.But the question is actually not straight forward and innocent as it appears.

The common man will hesitate a lot to say Jesus was a liar or lunatic..So then only the third alternative remains.

But I consider this question to be wrong.Why?

1.It doesnt include the other options.That is "Jesus never said those words"/"jesus never existed"/"He was misquoted"

Now these option changes the question to "Were the gospel writers liars,lunatics or true historians"?

There is no justification in asking the lord liar or lunatic question about jesus.Had he written a book we can ask that question.But he never wrote any book.What we have is "Reports on his words".So we have to question the genuineess of that report first before questioning the truthfulness of the speaker's words.

So the question should be "Were Matthew,mark,luke and john liars,true historians or lunatics?"

On further inspection we should still refine this question.Because this question implies that

1.Matthew,mark,luke and John existed
2.They wrote the supposed portions of Bible.
3.we have them exactly as they reported.

Bible passed on as oral traditions for some time.45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D.

So now the question becomes

1.The people who heard bible,memorized it and passed it to others did so without any change in its text for many years.Yes or no?

The theory of chinese whispers comes to my mind.When 20 people are in a room and we say a sentence to one person and if he passes it to others secretly, the statement that emerges from the last person will be totally different from the initial statement.They will be totally different.

when one sentence changes like this what about a whole book?

So the "Liar,lord or lunatic" is a wrong question according to me.

What do you all think?

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:11 am

I see no reason that God needs a sacrifice to forgive our sins.

i see no reason why you would see anything clearly.

Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:30 am

gonkm wrote:The true evidence for the bible exists within the heart. For those who are not relativists, it exists within a natural morality that each person finds within himself. Nobody quite live up to this morality if they are perfectly honest with themselves. But this I mean consistantly all the time. The apostle Paul said in Romans 7:19 "For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. "

Then it's not evidence, is it? It's a belief. It's faith. It's an unsubstantiated guess. It's an appeal to emotion. None of those things are evidence, so theists need to stop claiming they have evidence for their beliefs, they have none.

So the true evidence for the bible is in fact subjective. It exists when the holy spirit convicts you of your sin and makes you realize you need a savior. Because Jesus paid for your sins you can begin a new life free to do the "good works he has set before us". Whereas we were once slaves to all the ways of the world, money, pride, owning 'stuff', beauty, intelligence, power, etc., we now become slaves to righteousness, goodnes, love for others. By making Jesus our Lord we are set free from sin. We are forgiven. We live with a wonderful creator who cares, and is the meaning in what we do. In my quote from Paul above he says that the evil he does is not what he wants to do. Living in Christ, brings us more and more closely to doing and desiring to do the go that He brought us into this world to accomplish.

Then the true evidence of the Vedas is in fact subjective, it exists when you realize you need Krishna as your savior. I could do this with pretty much every religion out there. It's all pointless though. Why is "living in Christ" any better than "living in Enki"? Or any other invented deity?

See, I really don't give a rat's ass what you believe, but the second you start telling others that what you believe is true, then I expect you to back it up with something a little better than empty words. What makes your beliefs better than a Hindu's? Or a Buddhist's? Or someone who worships a rock?

Come on, give us something real to go on.

formerchristian68 · Post by **formerchristian68** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:20 am

[quote="Uncaged"]Hi, sin is fun,

Great questions these........

O.K. Lets have a look at the four Gospels.....Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

When I first seriously delved into the Bible some 8 years ago, (after being agnostic for decades) one of the first things I noticed was that all the four Gospels were......well.......... slightly different.
Different in tone....and....in some places, actually slightly different in content. An example would be the four accounts of the crucifixion.
In one Gospel the two criminals who were crucified along with Jesus BOTH slagged Jesus off, in another.....one comes to Jesus's defence. In one Gospel, a Roman soldier is qouted, in another he is not mentioned. etc: etc:
Now at first, I thought, it can't be true, because the four Gospel writers all say something slightly different. Then I began to think otherwise, because in a way, it kind of proved to me that there had been no collaboration between the four writers and that they had got their information from four separate sources..
Imagine if you will, four witnesses all stood in a different place who are witnesses to a car accident. if all four witness statements said exactly the same thing, then I would begin to feel very suspect that all the witnesses had somehow 'collaberated' and therefore, that their 'evidence' was suspect. In reality, if the four witnesses to the accident were all viewing the accident form a different place, then we would expect their testimonies to be all be slightly different. Same story, differnet 'angle' on things. Strangely it was the diffrences or 'mistakes' (as a non believer might put it) in the four Gospels, which actually got me to thinking that the four writer were in fact telling the truth.

If you had different details of this car accident but they did not contradict, then this arguement might be viable. However, lets pretend that witnesses of this accident gave a different order of events. They can't both be right. This is what you have in the Bible. The order of events in the story of the resurrection in Luke and John contradicts.

In luke 24, mary goes to the tomb vs 1, then she sees they see the angels (vs 4), then they return to the disciples (vs 9).

Now lets look at john 20
mary goes to the tomb (vs 1), then she ran to the disciples (vs 2-4) then they see the angels (vs 12).

Did mary see the disciples or the angel(s) first?

There are details about the resurrection in the bible that are different, such as one angel or two angels, jesus in part of story or not included, etc. The above example is just the most obvious contradiction.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:06 am

perplexed101 wrote:

i see no reason why you would see anything clearly.

There you are bible bashing. I think It was a personal insult, but I consider the source.
Now go turn yourself in.
Eph 5:2 I suppose you think God wrote it personal with his big finger.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/ephesians.html

Eph 5:2. Read "loved you" instead of "loved us". T Tr A WH N
Eph 5:2. Read "given himself for you" instead of "given himself for us". A WHt

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ephesians.html

Offline Resources for Ephesians
Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? : The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1996), pp. 183-188.
Raymond Edward Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 620-637.
Udo Schnelle, translated by M. Eugene Boring, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 299-314.
Information on Ephesians
Kummel provides three arguments that have persuaded most scholars to consider Ephesians to be deutero-Pauline (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 358-361): language and style, dependence upon Colossians, and theological differences.

Many terms in Ephesians aren't found in genuine Paulines but are found in the later NT writings and early patristic writings. Also, the author of Ephesians uses different words for important Pauline concepts. "Although these and related linguistic and stylistic differences alone could not prove the Pauline authorship of Eph to be impossible, they make extremely difficult the supposition that Paul could have written Eph in the form in which it has been handed down."

Almost all of Ephesians evinces verbal contacts with Colossians, indicating that the author of Ephesians wrote in imitation of Colossians, and the author also shows contact with the rest of the Pauline corpus (excepting II Thess). "Decisive against assuming that the same author wrote Col and Eph very quickly one after the other are those instances where Eph manifests clearly (a) literary dependence or (b) at the same time a really substantive difference from Col."

Kummel shows five different ways in which Ephesians clearly has a further developed theology than Colossians. Moreover: "If these developments beyond Paul are in any case completely inconceivable in a letter of Paul written at almost exactly the same time as Col, other ideas and formulations in Eph stand in any case in irreconcilable opposition to Paul. In characteristic fashion, Eph 2:10 in reworking Col 1:10 employs the plural erga agatha which Paul always avoids (see 21.4.1). Equally characteristic is the fact that Eph in contrast with Col uses several en-formulae that Paul does not have: en tw cristo ihson (3:11), en tw ihson (4:21), en tw kurio ihson (1:15). And in 1:15 pistis is linked with kurios, while in Paul it is linked only with cristos. Also it cannot be an accident that only in Eph 1:17; 3:14 (in contrast to all the Pauline letters) do we hear God addressed as Father in petition. Still more essential than these divergences, however, are three other factors which cannot be reconciled with Pauline authorship. First, in contrast to all the Pauline letters including Col 3:4, there is lacking in Eph any mention of the expectation of the parousia. With its formulation eis pasas tas geneas ton aiwnos twn aiwnwn, Eph 3:21 is scarcely counting on a near eschaton. The valuing of marriage as the image of the heavenly union of Christ and his church (5:25 ff) is scarcely open to the same Paul who wrote I Cor 7. Finally, the statement that Paul's commissioned office was to proclaim the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the promise of Christ (3:2 ff) is contradicted by his own statements including Col 1:25 ff, and the self-designation of Paul as egacistoteros pantwn agiwn (3:8) is scarcely a conceivable overstatement of egacistos ton apostolwn (I Cor 15:9)."
Richard Heard writes (An Introduction to the New Testament): "These developments of Pauline thought are of great value and importance, but seem to be the building of another thinker on Pauline foundations rather than Paul's continuation of his own work. This impression is confirmed by the nature of the epistle itself which does not address itself to a particular situation, as all of Paul’s genuine epistles do, but is more of a treatise than a letter. The personal references (3:1, 4:1, 6:21-22) appear to be selected from Colossians, and the reference to 'holy' apostles (3:5) sounds strange from Paul's pen, although natural to a writer of the next generation."

A. D. Howell-Smith writes (Jesus Not a Myth, pp. 132-133):

If the Pauline authorship of Colossians is doubtful, that of Ephesians is still more so. In style it differs even more than the Epistle to the Colossians from the earlier Epistles attributed to Paul. Though it has stylistic peculiarities, as well as expressions, which differentiate it from Collosians, there are such close resemblances, in places, between the two as to suggest that Ephesians was written in imitation of the other work. The Christologies of both Epistles are similar. It is hard to believe that Paul wrote that the Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Ephes. ii, 20); would one who had to fight so hard for his claim to apostleship against those who denied it have spoken in this impersonal way of the Apostles as a closed and sacred body? Still harder is it to regard as Pauline the statement that the "mystery which from all ages has been hid" - to wit, "that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs" of the Gospel of Christ - has been now revealed "unto (Christ's) holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" (Ephes. iii, 5, 6, 9). The "holy apostles" are here represented as joint recipients of the same revelation, and Paul is merged in the group as having no special status of his own in the divine economy. That which Paul called "my Gospel" is no longer recognized as such, and the long struggle he had undergone to win for his Gentile converts spiritual equality with Jewish Christians has been quite forgotten.
Against Wallace, it is not the case that 1 Clement is familiar with Ephesians. The earliest author to show clear dependence upon Ephesians is Ignatius (Eph 12:1, Polyc 5:1). Kummel reasons (op. cit., p. 366): "If, then, it is determined that Eph was written in the post-Pauline period, the fact that Ignatius knows it implies a date no later than the first decade of the second century. A more exact date might be determined if we could prove a literary dependence of I Peter on Eph, but in view of the common paranetic tradition this is not convincing. And since Eph seems to know the collected Pauline letters, an earlier date is not likely. The date of writing cannot be determined more closely than sometime between 80 and 100."

I found this interesting!

youngborean wrote:

What scholarship have you done personally that proves that the writers of the NT did not know Jesus in the flesh? Or do you rely on the scholarship of others (hersay)? Do you read NT greek? Do you have a degree in History of the Second Temple period? How do the Gospels and the supposed authors do not match up? What presumed elements of the gospels are you looking for that aren't there? So if scholarship is reading things and believing them based on presumptions, it is any less scholastic to read the NT and believe the accounts? Both are scholarly, and both start with assumptions and make conclusions. If you are asserting that the author are using pseudonyms, then enlighten me with evidence to prove you point based on your primary knowledge without using the element which you dennounce the NT, hersay.

Ok every one get out your resumes!
Sometime scholarship gets mixed up with propaganda.

youngborean wrote:

But all scholarship on the bible is Hersay (simply based on the fact that no scholar was there when the books were written).

Scholarship can be done with the source material at hand with out believing it. It is not hearsay it was propaganda.

youngborean wrote:

But since your a scholar that learns everything first hand than assert why it isn't a double standard to use the same futile argument to disprove all critical scholarship as you use to "prove" based on presumed evidence, that no NT writer knew Jesus.

Paul didn't know Jesus in the flesh at least according to his(if they were his) own words and he did seem to think every one else that saw Jesus post-crucifixtion saw him the same way. Visions, dreams and and voices as well as trips to the different levels of heaven the later NT gospel writers that we still have made a point to show that he was a flesh and blood human after make no mention of Paul. Now James and Jude may or may not be written by Jesus brothers may have know him if it was them who wrote the letters or messages. I find it interesting that these two letters were accepted late in Church history and ofter rejected by many Protestants leader such as Luther, Calvin, or anyone with the Faith-only faith. Many scholars think that the family of Jesus was written out of the records due to power struggles in the early church. that is Family vs bishops in power. When Constantine paid these guys to develope their doctrines and decide what was to be included in the NT they had to get their act together and come up with the party line. a lot of stuff was left out. Then a lot of stuff was burned some times even people. The library in Alexandea and the Gnostic priest are two tragic examples.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:49 am

There are many forgeries also. But I am sure it is ok because they like
Paul were doing it for Christ's sake. Anything for to push the message. the End justifies the Means. Of course what justifies the end. I think the means justifies the end.

Forgeries* in the Bible
Matthew 6:13: The Lord's Prayer traditionally ends: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." This seems to have been absent from the original writings. 6
Matthew 17:21 is a duplicate of Mark 9:29. It was apparently added by a copyist in order to make Matthew agree with Mark. But Mark 9:29 also contains a forgery*; this makes Matthew 17:21 a type of double-layered forgery*. 5
John 7:53 to 8:11: One of the most famous forgeries* in the Bible is the well-known story of the woman observed in adultery. It was apparently written and inserted after John 7:52 by an unknown author, perhaps in the 5th century CE. This story is often referred to as an "orphan story" because it is a type of floating text which has appeared after John 7:36, John 7:52, John 21:25, and Luke 21:38 in various manuscripts. Some scholars believe that the story may have had its origins in oral traditions about Jesus.
It is a pity that the status of verses John 8:1-11 are not certain. If they were known to be a reliable description of Jesus' ministry, they would have given a clear indication of Jesus' stance on the death penalty.
Mark 9:29: Jesus comments that a certain type of indwelling demon can only be exorcised through "prayer and fasting" (KJV) This is also found in the Rheims New Testament. But the word "fasting" did not appear in the oldest manuscripts. 5 New English translations have dropped the word.
Mark 16:9-20: The original version of Mark ended rather abruptly at the end of Verse 8. Verses 9 to 20, which are shown in most translations of the Bible, were added later by an unknown forger*. The verses were based on portions of Luke, John and other sources.
Luke 3:22: This passage describes Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. According to Justin Martyr, the original version of this verse has God speaking the words: "You are my son, today have I begotten thee." Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and other ancient Christian authorities also quoted it this way. 1 The implication is that Jesus was first recognized by God as his son at the time of baptism. But a forger* altered the words to read: "You are my son, whom I love." The altered passage conformed more to the evolving Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God at his birth, (as described in Luke and Matthew) or before the beginning of creation (as in John), and not at his baptism.
John 5:3-4: These verses describe how "a great multitude" of disabled people stayed by the water. From time to time an angel arrived, and stirred the waters. The first person who stepped in was cured. This passage seems strange. The process would not be at all just, because the blind could not see the waters being stirred, and the less mobile of the disabled would have no chance of a cure. Part of Verse 3 and all of Verse 4 are missing from the oldest manuscripts of John. 3 It appears to be a piece of free-floating magical text that someone added to John.
John 21: There is general agreement among liberal and mainline Biblical scholars that the original version of the Gospel of John ended at the end of John 20. John 21 appears to either be an afterthought of the author(s) of John, or a later addition by a forger*. Most scholars believe the latter. 4
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services. It is obvious to some theologians that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter* with little talent at forgery.* Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." 2 If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition. Since they were a later forgery*, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul. This is a very important passage, because much many denominations stand against female ordination is based on these verses.
Revelation 1:11: The phrase "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," (KJV) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. It is also found in the New King James Version (NKJV) and in the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) The latter are basically re-writes of the original KJV. Modern English, is used, but the translators seem to have made little or no effort to correct errors. The Alpha Omega phrase "is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation or in Bruce Metzger's definitive 'A Textual Commentary' on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994..." 7

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

But i like this part!

David and Jonathan
Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul.

Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. It is inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual.
Some religious beleive that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are: 1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.

1 Samuel 18:2
"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)

David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close.

1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical.

1 Samuel 18:20-21
"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)

Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."

In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)

The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

I remember some one in one of the forums describing the relationship of God and Jesus as God using words close to the relationship between David and Jonathan. I wish I could find it.

1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

But how about 2 Sam. 623 and 2 Sam.21:8.
How many children did Michal have none or 5?
Maybe they were not David's he was very busy before Jonathan died.
Even if they were not his we got two confliction accounts.

gonkm · Post by **gonkm** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:55 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:gonkm wrote:
So if a good friend of yours rapes a 13 year old girl, you can forgive his sin? And God will uphold your forgiveness as making your friend righteous? Sounds like getting enough people with such power together, and you've got a bunch of rapists and murderers forgiving eachother into Heaven.
Sounds like you jumped to some unwarranted conclusions.
You also used an outlandish example and off the topic.
Your playing games. What ever you think it sounds like does not lead to your conclusion.
If a good friend of mine does that I would first be very surprized wouldn't you if your good friend did that. Do you think anything I think about forgiveness would stop rapes? Is that why you don't rape 13 year olds is because no one will forgive you but God thru Jesus. Does any of that count?
I may forgive his sin we all may even after 20 years in prison. Does God?
It is up to God. It would seem to me if you belive Jesus died to forgive sins then that would cause more rapes wouldn't it? I think there was a bunch of rapist and murderers forgiving each other and going to heaven they called it the crusades. And don't blame the Catholics it is the Protestants heritage also. Protestants burned a lot of "Witches" and Anabaptists.

I apologize for being off topic. Anyhow, I was not trying to "jump to conclusions" but to present the kind of world we would have if such as you said were true. I agree with you about the crusades, and some of the catholic and protestant histories as well. Its pretty aweful when people claim to have the power of God, who don't really have it. Actually when the church starts to have too much power in governing the state, I think its lending way too much opportunity for evil people to use such power to their advantage by claiming religion for the sake of power. I don't believe religion should be used as a way of governing the masses, but people should be made as free as possible to believe what they thing is true to the best of their knowledge and experience.

Anyhow, as far as "Lord,Lunatic, or Liar (or Legend)" goes, I definitely believe Jesus is the Lord (king, ruler) of the heavens and the earth. Can't I prove this? Not in the sense of science, "a repeatable experience". I believe it is up to the individual to ask Jesus into their heart, and then watch as their life changes. He has led me in some unusual experiences which lead me to two conclusions : 1) Jesus is who the bible says he is or 2) God doesn't mind being called Jesus and has a place for me in his heart. I choose 1 because Jesus was who I was talking to when these experiences occured.

If some or any of the bible was fabricated it does nothing whatsoever to my faith in Jesus as a person. So for me, he is Lord.

gonkm · Post by **gonkm** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:09 pm

Cephus wrote:
gonkm wrote:The true evidence for the bible exists within the heart. For those who are not relativists, it exists within a natural morality that each person finds within himself. Nobody quite live up to this morality if they are perfectly honest with themselves. But this I mean consistantly all the time. The apostle Paul said in Romans 7:19 "For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. "
Then it's not evidence, is it? It's a belief. It's faith. It's an unsubstantiated guess. It's an appeal to emotion. None of those things are evidence, so theists need to stop claiming they have evidence for their beliefs, they have none.

So the true evidence for the bible is in fact subjective. It exists when the holy spirit convicts you of your sin and makes you realize you need a savior. Because Jesus paid for your sins you can begin a new life free to do the "good works he has set before us". Whereas we were once slaves to all the ways of the world, money, pride, owning 'stuff', beauty, intelligence, power, etc., we now become slaves to righteousness, goodnes, love for others. By making Jesus our Lord we are set free from sin. We are forgiven. We live with a wonderful creator who cares, and is the meaning in what we do. In my quote from Paul above he says that the evil he does is not what he wants to do. Living in Christ, brings us more and more closely to doing and desiring to do the go that He brought us into this world to accomplish.
Then the true evidence of the Vedas is in fact subjective, it exists when you realize you need Krishna as your savior. I could do this with pretty much every religion out there. It's all pointless though. Why is "living in Christ" any better than "living in Enki"? Or any other invented deity?

See, I really don't give a rat's ass what you believe, but the second you start telling others that what you believe is true, then I expect you to back it up with something a little better than empty words. What makes your beliefs better than a Hindu's? Or a Buddhist's? Or someone who worships a rock?

Come on, give us something real to go on.

I can only back up from personal experience, and don't expect you to take anything I say as actually true. I was once sick in the hospital and very afraid I wasn't going to make it. It was then that I starting thinking about world religions, hinduism, buddhism, and philosophy such as objectivism, and relativism. Then it was as though my heart was filled with the truth (or what I believed to be true) and I asked Jesus into my life and to forgive me of my since. My faith helped me to heal and leave the hospital.

I have problems often finding things, and I pray that God will help me, and I always find them right after I pray, sometimes a voice in my head even tells me to "look right" etc.

One day I was walking to dcl, the computer lab on campus, and a large black cloud appear to be coming at me, like something out of a dream. I said and meant it that "I trust Christ to save me" and the cloud went away.

My grandfalther was very ill for a while and I saw an ambulance in front of his house and I ran while praying that he would be all right, and he was (although he died a short while later after accepting Jesus).

A friend of mine met a stranger who the holy spirit prompted her to talk to. She did and she actually knew his name before he told it to her. Even she finds this hard to believe.

Another person I know has had a number of miraculous healings in close friends and family.

But above all Jesus is a hope in my heart for a world better than the one in which we live, and its really hard for me to put my feelings into words, but I love him, and I know he is good.

I realize I may be ridiculed for revealing so much about my personal life. I'm certain that there are a lot of people out there who can give you much better historical evidence than I can, which is why I'm considering leaving this forum until I'm rather more knowlegeable, although I do find the discussions very interesting.

Anyhow, peace and God bless,
Nicole

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:44 pm

One of our rules is that we should remain civil. You will get no ridicule from me. However, this is a debate forum and you can expect to get reasoned responses challenging what you say.

If you are one of the growing number of christians who are comfortable with the idea that faith is subjective and that the evidence for the claimed truths of christianity are not absolute, then we agree.

I am quite sure that I can find testimonies similar to yours by those who profess a wide variety of faiths. Some modern, some ancient, some christian, some not. Since many of these faiths contradict each other, I cannot grant any validity to any of these testimonies.

Answered prayer is another one of those invalid evidences. When things go as praying people want them to go, then that is held up as evidence that god answers prayer. But when things go badly, then god has other plans. Every prayer believer who survived the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, probably thinks that god answered his or her prayer. But the many prayers of those who died went unanswered. I am unaware of any valid, properly controlled study showing that prayer is in any way effective. We can so easily be deceived by our own subjective experiences.

gonkm wrote:I can only back up from personal experience, and don't expect you to take anything I say as actually true. I was once sick in the hospital and very afraid I wasn't going to make it. It was then that I starting thinking about world religions, hinduism, buddhism, and philosophy such as objectivism, and relativism. Then it was as though my heart was filled with the truth (or what I believed to be true) and I asked Jesus into my life and to forgive me of my since. My faith helped me to heal and leave the hospital.

I have problems often finding things, and I pray that God will help me, and I always find them right after I pray, sometimes a voice in my head even tells me to "look right" etc.

One day I was walking to dcl, the computer lab on campus, and a large black cloud appear to be coming at me, like something out of a dream. I said and meant it that "I trust Christ to save me" and the cloud went away.

My grandfalther was very ill for a while and I saw an ambulance in front of his house and I ran while praying that he would be all right, and he was (although he died a short while later after accepting Jesus).

A friend of mine met a stranger who the holy spirit prompted her to talk to. She did and she actually knew his name before he told it to her. Even she finds this hard to believe.

Another person I know has had a number of miraculous healings in close friends and family.

But above all Jesus is a hope in my heart for a world better than the one in which we live, and its really hard for me to put my feelings into words, but I love him, and I know he is good.

I realize I may be ridiculed for revealing so much about my personal life. I'm certain that there are a lot of people out there who can give you much better historical evidence than I can, which is why I'm considering leaving this forum until I'm rather more knowlegeable, although I do find the discussions very interesting.

Anyhow, peace and God bless,
Nicole

gonkm · Post by **gonkm** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:29 pm

McCulloch wrote:One of our rules is that we should remain civil. You will get no ridicule from me. However, this is a debate forum and you can expect to get reasoned responses challenging what you say.

If you are one of the growing number of christians who are comfortable with the idea that faith is subjective and that the evidence for the claimed truths of christianity are not absolute, then we agree.

I am quite sure that I can find testimonies similar to yours by those who profess a wide variety of faiths. Some modern, some ancient, some christian, some not. Since many of these faiths contradict each other, I cannot grant any validity to any of these testimonies.

Answered prayer is another one of those invalid evidences. When things go as praying people want them to go, then that is held up as evidence that god answers prayer. But when things go badly, then god has other plans. Every prayer believer who survived the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, probably thinks that god answered his or her prayer. But the many prayers of those who died went unanswered. I am unaware of any valid, properly controlled study showing that prayer is in any way effective. We can so easily be deceived by our own subjective experiences.

Yes, I do believe that faith is subjective. We can provide "evidences" one way or another, but they by no means prove our faith. As for people in other religions, I can't really speak for them, I'd rather hear what they have to say for themselves. We had a thing at my church where a buddist, a hindu person (not sure what the right name is), a muslim, and a Jew were invided to represent their religion (along with a person representing Chrsitianity). They were all highly respected scholars as well as members of their particular faiths, and it was a very interesting discussion. I think they all did remarkably well at defending their case. I still thought the case for Christianity came out best, but that is only because I'm biased.

As far as your statement "We can so easily be deceived by our own subjective experiences. " This is true, but at the same time it is what we have to go on. Right now I'm sitting on a sofa, and the reason I sat on it was that I had faith that it was a good place to sit, would not break, or send me springing off of it. We all have to have faith in some things. Faith becomes "objective" when more than one person experiences the same thing. But does that imply that anything experienced by only a single person is not "real"? I don't know if you've ever seen the movie Contact, but in it Jodie Foster goes into a machine which most expect to be a way of contacting an alian species. What happens is she has a somewhat religious experience with her dead father. After she gets back, she has to somehow defend herself and what she experienced.
Here's some of the script:

How do you explain this [lack of evidence], Doctor [Arroway]?"
"I can't."
"There is no evidence, no record, no artifacts; the story strains credibility. Do you expect us to take your story -- on *faith*?... Do you admit it's possible it didn't happen?"
"Yes." (Again, shaken.)
"You grant there is no physical evidence?"
"Yes."
"You admit you could have just hallucinated the whole thing?"
"Yes."
"You admit that, if you were in our shoes, you would respond to the story with skepticism?"
"Yes."
But here is the all-important line: "Then why don't you just admit it didn't happen?" Arroway answers: "BECAUSE I CAN'T! Everything that I *am* is telling me that it was real.

This is the way it is with faith. Those of us who've had experiences of God, cannot deny them, even though at the same time we cannot "prove" them (I know there are some who claim they can, but I myself doubt it). I openly admit I may be wrong. The presence I feel of God in my life, the outward and inward experiences could just be hallucinations, wishful thinking (thought the incident with the cloud was definitely not what I would wish), etc. But I can not deny these experiences because they make up who I am, and the feeling of truth is in them. When I read the bible, I see truth there, and that is an experience in itself. If others don't see the same truth, does that invalidate what I see? No, though it does mean one of us is wrong. If others see the same truth does that validate what I see? No, it just means that something appears truthful to more than one person.

But I contend (and I suppose this is philosophical) that we each must go by our own experiences and what we believe to be true. We are each on a journey and we shall one day see where it will end. I believe that Jesus is Lord and paid for my sins because to me it is an inward reality. I don't deny that I could be wrong, but I'm betting my whole life on its being right.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:35 pm

I have no problem with subjective faith. Or even with subjective faith.
I am not here to beat the hell out of any ones faith, I pray, am I talking to God or myself? Maybe both maybe neither. I fell down the steps once(ok many times and I was sober) and caught myself praying. Then I ask for forgiveness when I realized people were dying all over the world and suffering worse than I could imagine. I felt silly. much like the Jewish person who sees the fire truck go by and prays Lord please don't let it be my house, which is saying let it be someone else. I belive we live in a sympathetic universe,
for good or evil. So we all share each others sorrow and joy and God what ever that maybe does the same. I tend to think the concept of God should extend our reach but it is highly subjective.
McCulloch wrote:

I am quite sure that I can find testimonies similar to yours by those who profess a wide variety of faiths. Some modern, some ancient, some christian, some not. Since many of these faiths contradict each other, I cannot grant any validity to any of these testimonies

Answered prayer is another one of those invalid evidences. When things go as praying people want them to go, then that is held up as evidence that god answers prayer. But when things go badly, then god has other plans. Every prayer believer who survived the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, probably thinks that god answered his or her prayer. But the many prayers of those who died went unanswered. I am unaware of any valid, properly controlled study showing that prayer is in any way effective. We can so easily be deceived by our own subjective experiences.

I have to concur. I don't belive people are sick because of sin(what ever that is) but sin can make you sick, as drinking to much beer will. Warm beer is worse. I think it is a statistical function. A continuum, for good thinks to happen there has to be the possibility of bad things happening.
If a person is in touch with nature or sees an elf they are both subjective experiences. How it is conceived is personal and interpreted.
I have problems with people that know God's will for everyone else.
Why shouldn't gays or lesbians get married. There is so little love in the world who are we to tell them it is wrong because some collection of writings may or may not have said so? Who is any one to burn a witch? Or a Cathar for that matter. If God exists then every one is connected to that even Atheists. I don't think that not believing makes the world a worse place. But many believers do make the world a worse place. Every one has miracles, life is a miracle. I still question the Jesus is God thing for all kinds of reasons and I don't belive that he is the only way to where ever anyone is going. So I disagree with the Biblicist. I belive faith was more like trust and faithfulness then believing something irrational.
When Abraham was told to kill his son by the Elohim and an messenger of Yahweh stops him, I am not impressed with Abraham, people were killing there oldest son all over the place for them it was the natural thing to do. I am impressed that he didn't. And not just because I am the oldest son in my family. I am interested in truth and a lie is only good if your hidding Jews or something like that.

Debating Christianity and Religion

Lord,Liar or Lunatic

Lord,Liar or Lunatic

Re: Lord, liar, or lunatic