Disbelievers in Christianity Answer Please!

[Willamena]

Why would belief be necessary when the orange is there to see?

Because knowledge is a justified belief. There is no knowledge without belief. Everything you know, you believe.

All belief is subject to error. If you see an orange on a table are you really unsure if the orange is there or not? When you drive and see a red light, do you believe it's red or do you know it's red and stop? If you only believe it's red maybe you are mistaken and it's really green. Even if you are color blind the position of the lights will confirm what the color is, unless you only believe that light is lit and not another one. Are you really this confused about what you see when you drive?

Belief is a judgment we make about things and ideas we can't verifiy. We didn't see OJ kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, but we can look at the evidence and come to a conclusion he did it. Is there a chance he didn't? Yes, a very slight and unlikely chance, and we weren't there to see him do it. But we can make a judgment based on the evidence. If we saw OJ do it, it wouldn't be belief, it would be a fact we witnessed.

Does this clarify that we don't have to believe what we see and sense?

I don't know about you, but if I see an orange on a table, I have absolutely no reason to question my belief that it's an orange on a table unless and until something occurs to make me question it. A fact is supported by belief. If I see a red light, I have no reason not to stop unless and until something actually occurs to make me question it.

If you question yourself to the point where you doubt a light is red and suspect it might be green despite the evidence (its colour and its position on the pole, both obtained through senses), then you're a hazard on the road and a safety risk to others. Get yourself examined.

Oh, and, I'm not a driver.

Belief through senses is justified until it's not. Belief is not about what we cannot verify, that would be silly. We cannot verify that some guy lives on some moon in some star system in some time era. Why would we even want to (unless it was Tom Hanks)? Why? You're making no sense. Belief is about the world around us and something to question the truth our senses. Until they are questionable, they are the verification.

By the way, OJ was innocent, it was his son that committed the murders with the help of a ninja.

 

[Willamena]

Are you sure free will exists?

I am free will, so yeah.

(I apologize in advance, I know nothing about Bahai).

 

[Willamena]

Suppose, He comes down from Sky, and declairs He is Christ!

To prove it, He will take you, to some of your loved ones grave, and resurrects them. Those are grandparents or some close relatives and friends, and you know they had passed away and were in that graves.

Now, please answer the Poll, based on this event. Assume it happend

So, this "Christ" is some sort of zombie maker. Okay. I would not believe, because dead is dead. Evidence of the sense and all that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am free will, so yeah.

(I apologize in advance, I know nothing about Bahai).

I'm actually Jewish, not Bahai.

I'm now 62. For most of my life, I have been firmly convinced of free will. However, in the last ten years, I have had the chance to mull over a series of lectures in Behavioral Biology by Dr. Robert Sapolsky. I think that at this time, I have to admit that I have changed my mind.

 

[F1fan]

Because knowledge is a justified belief. There is no knowledge without belief. Everything you know, you believe.


I don't know about you, but if I see an orange on a table, I have absolutely no reason to question my belief that it's an orange on a table unless and until something occurs to make me question it.

Well me, I'm not confused about what oranges are. If I see an orange I know it IS an orange, I don't have to believe it's an orange because I have a long life of experience with oranges. Justified true belief only applies to knowledge that isn't what we can verify for ourselves, like history and science textbooks. We didn't witness the Civil War, but we are justified in the belief that it happened, and as descrbed by historians. If you are involved in a car accident, you don't believe it happened, you experienced it. You telling the cops what happened will be a testimony others believe.

A fact is supported by belief. If I see a red light, I have no reason not to stop unless and until something actually occurs to make me question it.

How often have you been confused about what you see in regards to traffic lights? Unless we are drunk or on drugs or sleepy we tend to function well enough to acknowledge red lights are what they are. We don't even have to think about it, we recognize the red and we react.

If you question yourself to the point where you doubt a light is red and suspect it might be green despite the evidence (its colour and its position on the pole, both obtained through senses), then you're a hazard on the road and a safety risk to others. Get yourself examined.

Color blindness is a real issue for some, and they have to look at where the light is to determine what the color is. But these are designed as a standard so the driver can adjust.

Oh, and, I'm not a driver.

Too many accidents?

Belief through senses is justified until it's not.

Which tends to come with impairment. Otherwise the senses are quite reliable.

Belief is not about what we cannot verify, that would be silly.

So those who believe in God have verified it exists?

We cannot verify that some guy lives on some moon in some star system in some time era. Why would we even want to (unless it was Tom Hanks)? Why? You're making no sense. Belief is about the world around us and something to question the truth our senses. Until they are questionable, they are the verification.

Talk about not making sense.

By the way, OJ was innocent, it was his son that committed the murders with the help of a ninja.

You must be the ninja to know this.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm now 62. For most of my life, I have been firmly convinced of free will. However, in the last ten years, I have had the chance to mull over a series of lectures in Behavioral Biology by Dr. Robert Sapolsky. I think that at this time, I have to admit that I have changed my mind.

So why do you no longer believe we have free will?

 

[Brian2]

No, I would not believe it was Christ.
I would believe it was some kind of trick used to try to convince me, or that I was only seeing an apparition, or that I was losing my mind.
Dead people don't rise from graves and come alive again in the same body. It has never happened and will never happen.

Thomas said that he would not believe until he had put his fingers in the wounds of Jesus.
But I don't think he had to go that far. Seeing is believing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So why do you no longer believe we have free will?

Because I have learned of all the things which do seem to determine our choices, whether genes, or epigenetics, womb environment, cultural background, influence of poverty and other sources of stress, traumas we experience... I think I've recalled about half the things covered in his lectures.

He is a brilliant, brilliant man, and his sense of humor makes his classes a delight to listen to. I encourage you to watch his lecture series for yourself, and see if your belief in free will remains intact.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D

 

[Trailblazer]

Because I have learned of all the things which do seem to determine our choices, whether genes, or epigenetics, womb environment, cultural background, influence of poverty and other sources of stress, traumas we experience... I think I've recalled about half the things covered in his lectures.

He is a brilliant, brilliant man, and his sense of humor makes his classes a delight to listen to. I encourage you to watch his lecture series for yourself, and see if your belief in free will remains intact.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D

I believe our choices are determined by our heredity and previous experiences, but that does not mean we do not make choices. Free will is simply the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences, which come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these are the reasons why we choose one thing or another.

How free our choices are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints such as ability and opportunity but we have volition as otherwise we could not do anything at all.

I also believe that many things that happen to us are not freely chosen, they are determined by fate, thus God is responsible for them. More and more, I am starting to think that we can only do what God has written for us on the Tablet of Fate, and that is like a script that is running in the background as we live our lives and make choices. I also believe that God guides my footsteps through His inspiration, especially when I pray for help. This little prayer I found recently says a lot about God.

I adjure Thee by Thy might, O my God! Let no harm beset me in times of tests, and in moments of heedlessness guide my steps aright through Thine inspiration. Thou art God, potent art Thou to do what Thou desirest. No one can withstand Thy Will or thwart Thy Purpose.

The Báb

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Suppose, He comes down from Sky, and declairs He is Christ!

To prove it, He will take you, to some of your loved ones grave, and resurrects them. Those are grandparents or some close relatives and friends, and you know they had passed away and were in that graves.

Now, please answer the Poll, based on this event. Assume it happend

We have plenty of christs on the internet. Add him to the list.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Thomas said that he would not believe until he had put his fingers in the wounds of Jesus.
But I don't think he had to go that far. Seeing is believing.

They saw someone they all didn’t recognize as Jesus, someone they had been with for months or years. The man claiming to be Jesus was so unlike him physically that people had to just decide who he was.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Suppose, He comes down from Sky, and declares He is Christ! To prove it, He will take you, to some of your loved one's grave and resurrects them. Those are grandparents or some close relatives and friends, and you know they had passed away and were in those graves. Now, please answer the Poll, based on this event. Assume it happened.

I know too much about how the world works without gods to ever posit any supernatural explanation for anything. If I could be convinced that the dead had been revivified, naturalistic explanations would still lead the list of possibilities. Maybe it was an illusion. Maybe it was an implanted memory. Maybe it was a hallucination or a vivid dream. If the dead actually lived again, maybe it was the work of extraterrestrials.

Even if this was the same guy that was crucified two millennia ago, you still couldn't convince me that Christian dogma is correct. Even if there are gods, the god of Abraham doesn't exist. Nobody created the universe in six days, there was never a first pair of human beings, and Noah's flood never occurred. The myths of Genesis cannot account for the evidence that supports the theory of evolution even if one could falsify it.

Think about that. What happens next if we somehow, tomorrow, we learn that it was all a massive deception following some falsifying find, that all that evidence was planted in the ground and that assorted nested hierarchies were designed by an intelligence to fool man into believing that evolution had occurred naturalistically. Then what?

Not Yahweh. It would have to be a deceptive intelligent designer that did that, not the god who it is said wants to be known, understood, believed, loved, obeyed, and worshiped. Pick another intelligent designer, a trickster one, one that lies.

And once again, even if we had to make some kind of massive paradigm shift to a trickster intelligent designer, naturalistic explanation - we're back to ET again - lead the list of candidate hypotheses in terms of order of likelihood.

 

[Brian2]

They saw someone they all didn’t recognize as Jesus, someone they had been with for months or years. The man claiming to be Jesus was so unlike him physically that people had to just decide who he was.

No that is not what it says. But in a couple of places they did not recognise Him. It says that the disciples on the road to Emmaus were prevented from recognising Him.

 

[CG Didymus]

Thomas said that he would not believe until he had put his fingers in the wounds of Jesus.
But I don't think he had to go that far. Seeing is believing.

Here's a list of people in the Bible and NT who were allegedly raised from the dead...

The widow of Zarephath’s son (1 Kings 17:17–24). Elijah the prophet raised the widow of Zarephath’s son from the dead.​

​

The Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:18–37). The prophet Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son from the dead.​

​

The man raised out of Elisha’s grave (2 Kings 13:20–21).​

​

The widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11–17). This is the first person Jesus raised from the dead. ​

​

Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:40–56). Jesus also showed His power over death by raising the young daughter of Jairus, a synagogue leader. ​

​

Lazarus of Bethany (John 11). The third person that Jesus raised from the dead was His friend Lazarus. ​

​

Various saints in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:50–53). The Bible mentions some people who were raised from the dead en masse at the time of the death of Christ. ​

​

Tabitha (Acts 9:36–43). Tabitha, whose Greek name was Dorcas, was a believer who lived in the coastal city of Joppa. Her return to life was performed by the apostle Peter. ​

​

Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12). Eutychus was a young man who lived (and died and lived again) in Troas. He was raised from the dead by the apostle Paul. ​

​

Jesus (Mark 16:1–8). Of course, any list of people raised from the dead must include Jesus Christ. His death and resurrection are the focal point of Scripture and the most important events in the history of the world. The resurrection of Jesus is notably different from other events in which people rose from the dead: Jesus’ resurrection is the first permanent return to life; everyone else who had been raised to life died again.​

​

I don't think the Baha'i Faith believes any of these really happened. And I doubt it also. But, if it's not true, then I think they were just embellished, fictional, religious stories meant to get people to believe in an all-powerful God. That, as far as I know, is not what Baha'is say.

Typically, they will say the story was being symbolic, and not literal... That they were parables. Which I think is a cop out, because they don't want to say the stories are false. They need the Bible and the NT to be true in a way that they can use it to support their religion as being part of the continual guidance from God. But I don't see any reason to believe these stories were ever meant to be taken symbolically. They were all written as if those events really happened.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think the Baha'i Faith believes any of these really happened. And I doubt it also. But, if it's not true, then I think they were just embellished, fictional, religious stories meant to get people to believe in an all-powerful God. That, as far as I know, is not what Baha'is say.

I am a Baha'i and that is what I say. As far as I know other Baha'is say the same thing.

Typically, they will say the story was being symbolic, and not literal... That they were parables. Which I think is a cop out, because they don't want to say the stories are false.

What we say is that the stories are not literally true and we have a lot of company for atheists and those of other religions.

They need the Bible and the NT to be true in a way that they can use it to support their religion as being part of the continual guidance from God.

Baha'is do not need the Bible to support the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Faith is based upon the revelation that Baha'u'llah received from God.

But I don't see any reason to believe these stories were ever meant to be taken symbolically. They were all written as if those events really happened.

It doesn't matter what the stories were meant to be taken as. The stories were addressed to ancient peoples. People living back in those days were ignorant of the facts of science so they believed the myths of the Bible were actually true. Maybe even the writers believed the stories were true but we know better now. This is a new age, the scientific age.

 

[Brian2]

Here's a list of people in the Bible and NT who were allegedly raised from the dead...

The widow of Zarephath’s son (1 Kings 17:17–24). Elijah the prophet raised the widow of Zarephath’s son from the dead.​

​

The Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:18–37). The prophet Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son from the dead.​

​

The man raised out of Elisha’s grave (2 Kings 13:20–21).​

​

The widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11–17). This is the first person Jesus raised from the dead. ​

​

Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:40–56). Jesus also showed His power over death by raising the young daughter of Jairus, a synagogue leader. ​

​

Lazarus of Bethany (John 11). The third person that Jesus raised from the dead was His friend Lazarus. ​

​

Various saints in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:50–53). The Bible mentions some people who were raised from the dead en masse at the time of the death of Christ. ​

​

Tabitha (Acts 9:36–43). Tabitha, whose Greek name was Dorcas, was a believer who lived in the coastal city of Joppa. Her return to life was performed by the apostle Peter. ​

​

Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12). Eutychus was a young man who lived (and died and lived again) in Troas. He was raised from the dead by the apostle Paul. ​

​

Jesus (Mark 16:1–8). Of course, any list of people raised from the dead must include Jesus Christ. His death and resurrection are the focal point of Scripture and the most important events in the history of the world. The resurrection of Jesus is notably different from other events in which people rose from the dead: Jesus’ resurrection is the first permanent return to life; everyone else who had been raised to life died again.​

​

I don't think the Baha'i Faith believes any of these really happened. And I doubt it also. But, if it's not true, then I think they were just embellished, fictional, religious stories meant to get people to believe in an all-powerful God. That, as far as I know, is not what Baha'is say.

Typically, they will say the story was being symbolic, and not literal... That they were parables. Which I think is a cop out, because they don't want to say the stories are false. They need the Bible and the NT to be true in a way that they can use it to support their religion as being part of the continual guidance from God. But I don't see any reason to believe these stories were ever meant to be taken symbolically. They were all written as if those events really happened.

I think the Baha'is have a variety of beliefs about the Bible, depending which Baha'i you are talking to, but overall Baha'is tend to disbelieve the Bible while saying they believe it. That's the fruit of the false prophet Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think the Baha'is have a variety of beliefs about the Bible, depending which Baha'i you are talking to,

That's true.

Introduction

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

but overall Baha'is tend to disbelieve the Bible while saying they believe it.

Believe what? Just because we do not interpret everything in the Bible literally, that does not mean we do not believe in the Bible.
Believe what? Just because we do not interpret everything in the Bible the way Christians do, that does not mean we do not believe in the Bible.

Who is to say that Christians have interpreted the Bible correctly? Who gave authority to Christians to interpret the Bible? Certainly not Jesus.
Why should anyone believe that all the stories in the Bible are literally true? Who wrote the Bible? Certainly not Jesus.

Christians have misinterpreted the Bible and that has led to the false Christian doctrines that we see today.
That is a real shame because so much of what Jesus said in the Bible is true, but that got lost in the shuffle of false doctrines, which are things that do not even matter or help humanity in any way.

That's the fruit of the false prophet Baha'u'llah.

No, it is NOT. You will not get away with misrepresenting my religion, not on my watch.
Baha'u'llah referred to the Bible as "God's greatest testimony to His creatures."

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! “How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?”​

The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89​

 

[Audie]

Suppose, He comes down from Sky, and declairs He is Christ!

To prove it, He will take you, to some of your loved ones grave, and resurrects them. Those are grandparents or some close relatives and friends, and you know they had passed away and were in that graves.

Now, please answer the Poll, based on this event. Assume it happend

What you are asking is if those who don't
buy into some religion have any intellectual
integrity.

The q is far far better directed at the religionists.

 

[Brian2]

No, it is NOT. You will not get away with misrepresenting my religion, not on my watch.
Baha'u'llah referred to the Bible as "God's greatest testimony to His creatures."

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! “How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?”​

The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89​

Baha'u'llah wouldn't do a thing to harm the gospel or say that it is wrong and not applicable today.
LOL

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'u'llah wouldn't do a thing to harm the gospel or say that it is wrong and not applicable today.
LOL

No, He would not, because He did not think it was wrong. Only the Christian interpretation of it is wrong.