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

[Willum]

Well, hmmmm.

I invoked the "Conservation of Mass," an almost universally applied concept in everyday life, one that applies to circuits, chemistry and implicitly in just about every aspect of science and life as proof that nothing is ever created nor destroyed.
I then looked at hydrogen, and note that it is an excellent example of this law: It is unchanged - that is even to say, created or destroyed, into and from eternity, but only that it may be changed under the same law of mass conservation.

Yet you said this was not proof. One, maybe two of the most fundamental principles of physics, yet you claimed it was not proof.

So, in this topic, you have claimed some kind of proof:
Let's see it.

[Tcg]

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

A godless Christianity and a Jesusless one are two totally different things. Given that, your Ehrman quote provides ZERO support for your claim.

[Tart]

Well, hmmmm.

I invoked the "Conservation of Mass," an almost universally applied concept in everyday life, one that applies to circuits, chemistry and implicitly in just about every aspect of science and life as proof that nothing is ever created nor destroyed.
I then looked at hydrogen, and note that it is an excellent example of this law: It is unchanged - that is even to say, created or destroyed, into and from eternity, but only that it may be changed under the same law of mass conservation.

Yet you said this was not proof. One, maybe two of the most fundamental principles of physics, yet you claimed it was not proof.

So, in this topic, you have claimed some kind of proof:
Let's see it.

Willum, this is beyond the scope of this topic as this is specifically of the evidences of Christianity...

But lets amuse what you are saying... How can you prove to someone that Matter didnt have a starting point? That it didnt begin to exist at, say, the Big Bang?

For someone who believes the universe has a beginning, with all the mass in the universe, and that the properties and laws of the universe followed after their beginning? How do you know thats not the case?

Because, after all, the "Conservation of Mass" was never evoked to say matter has always existed, and never created, but it was invoked to explain how matter behaves in its present form.

That is why the Conservation of Mass was discovered, to explain how physics works in a universe that is already existing... It was not invoked to tell us that the universe and its properties existed forever in eternity like you are suggesting. That is what YOU are invoking it for.

So how can you prove that this law means our universe, and its matter, existed forever in eternity?

[Tart]

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

A godless Christianity and a Jesusless one are two totally different things. Given that, your Ehrman quote provides ZERO support for your claim.

What that people create their ideas of Christianity in their heads? I think the quote supports that perfectly

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

But the Bottom line here is... Who is creating a belief here?

It appears that you consider skepticism a "belief." I suppose skeptics might have some beliefs about Jesus, but to doubt the major truth claims about Jesus is not a belief. If you call doubt a "belief," then you end up with the Orwellian self-contradiction: Unbelief is belief.

So to answer your question, some skeptics might be creating beliefs about Jesus, but skepticism regarding the major truth claims of Christianity is not a belief.

My belief are simply observations of Christianity. I certainly did not create Christianity in any sense. I simply observe is claims as true...

What are you observing? I don't think that any of the major truth claims of Christianity can be observed.

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.

I wouldn't say with confidence that Jesus was a myth, but I can't say with confidence either that he really existed.

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

Ehrman is either lying or displaying the most woeful ignorance about his own field of study. All we need to do is read the New Testament to see that he is wrong. 2 Peter 1:16:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

So Ehrman, like most real-Jesus apologists, is dead wrong about the view of Jesus as a myth being a modern-day development. Seeing Jesus as a myth goes back to the very invention of Christianity.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 4 by Tart]

But lets amuse what you are saying... How can you prove to someone that Matter didn't have a starting point? That it didn't begin to exist at, say, the Big Bang?

For the same reason we don't just spontaneously believe in unicorns, there is no reason, other than fairy tales, to believe matter had a starting point. Nothing we observe leads us to believe in the CREATION of mass. The Big Bang is a transformation - from a "hot dense state," to matter as we know it.

But you have segued the question from the germane. I gave two points that were well established evidence, and you countered with a "But what if?"
But what if there are unicorns?
But what if there is a creator?

You have assumed something that should be an obscure argument, and made it a premise.

You claimed you had proof, and immediately failed to provide any.
Where and what is your proof for this topic?

So, in this topic, you have claimed some kind of proof:
Let's see it.

[Tcg]

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

A godless Christianity and a Jesusless one are two totally different things. Given that, your Ehrman quote provides ZERO support for your claim.

What that people create their ideas of Christianity in their heads? I think the quote supports that perfectly

You failed to address the very clear error in using the quote you did to support the claim you made. What you think is totally irrelevant to that fact.

[Divine Insight]

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...

But how does this amount to evidence?

Where is the evidence that any "Christian Witness" has actually witnessed that they will be granted eternal life for believing that a God who is out to damn them will instead give them grace if they merely believe that Jesus was his Son?

Where is there any evidence that some God is out to damn you if you fail to believe in Christianity?

Also, what would believing in Christianity or Jesus have to do with morality?

Does it make sense to you that people who don't believe in this religion deserved to be damned simply because they don't believe in this religion?

How does believing in this religion make you anymore "worthy" of salvation, than someone else who doesn't believe in the religion?

And if it doesn't make you any better of a person or more "worthy" of salvation, then why should a decent unbiased God give you eternal life and forgiveness and not someone who doesn't believe in the religion?

How can you suggest that there is "evidence" to believe in the claims made by this religion when those claims don't even make sense?

And remember, everyone who doesn't believe that Jesus is the Son of Yahweh must then be damned. After all, if people who don't believe in Jesus or Christianity could be "saved" then Christianity can't be true because after all, it says so right in the scriptures. Those who don't believe in the name of God's only begotten Son are damned already.

So this leaves all Christians with no choice but to believe that the ONLY way to eternal life and heaven is through the belief that Jesus was the Son of Yahweh, and that Yahweh is the only "One True God".

Just think of how many people need to be condemned to hell for simply not believing in Christianity.

Are the people who believe in Christianity somehow "Better people" than those who don't. Surely not. Therefore Christianity wouldn't be about morality or personal responsibility at all.

The Christian heaven would need to be filled with a bunch of immoral people who were simply granted undeserved "grace" simply because they believed a particular religion.

Please tell me how this makes any sense. And where is there any "evidence " that this is true?

And by the way, now that you have accepted this as being true because of the "evidence" of those who "gave witness to Christianity" does this now qualify you as also being a valid "witness" to this so-called truth?

And if so, what exactly are you giving "witness" to? Did you actually see the eternal life that has been promised?

If not, then how can you claim to be a "witness" to this truth?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

But the Bottom line here is... Who is creating a belief here?

It appears that you consider skepticism a "belief." I suppose skeptics might have some beliefs about Jesus, but to doubt the major truth claims about Jesus is not a belief. If you call doubt a "belief," then you end up with the Orwellian self-contradiction: Unbelief is belief.

So to answer your question, some skeptics might be creating beliefs about Jesus, but skepticism regarding the major truth claims of Christianity is not a belief.

Well thats fine, however people seem to pull conclusions all the time, and certainly debate as if they are. If you would rather remain agnostic, I think that would be a reasonable situation for non belief. However, this is not the reality for most people, especially in a debate about Christianity.

My belief are simply observations of Christianity. I certainly did not create Christianity in any sense. I simply observe is claims as true...

What are you observing? I don't think that any of the major truth claims of Christianity can be observed.

Everything that can be observed in present day.. Like prophesies being fulfilled, the foundation of Christianity providing explanations for present day beliefs, the reasonableness of its claims, and the evidences of its roots.

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.

I wouldn't say with confidence that Jesus was a myth, but I can't say with confidence either that he really existed.

If you wish to remain agnostic, thats fine... Just dont backstep on it the second you leave this subject. We see atheists becoming agnostics as they see fit, all the time, and turning back to atheist when suitable... This is surely dishonesty in beliefs.

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

Ehrman is either lying or displaying the most woeful ignorance about his own field of study. All we need to do is read the New Testament to see that he is wrong. 2 Peter 1:16:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

So Ehrman, like most real-Jesus apologists, is dead wrong about the view of Jesus as a myth being a modern-day development. Seeing Jesus as a myth goes back to the very invention of Christianity.

This verse from Peter is about a voice coming down from heaven and speaking to them about Jesus being the Son of God... Not about Jesus existing... This quote is of the supernatural claims, not of Jesus's existence...

And in fact, if we study antiquity there is not a single source that claims, or assumes, or treats Jesus as if he never existed... That was never a criticism of Christianity until the 1800's... I believe your interpretation of the scripture is wrong.