Problems with Belief when it comes to a Christian and Islamic God...

[leibowde84]

Absolutely not! You only believe because He allows you to. That is Grace. You tread on thin ice. Faith is the evidence of things not seen - as it is written. That evidence is his son. Twice now you have almost denied him!

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "deny". I merely acknowledged the possibility that God might not exist. I did not claim that God does not exist.

 

[leibowde84]

Absolutely not! You only believe because He allows you to. That is Grace. You tread on thin ice. Faith is the evidence of things not seen - as it is written. That evidence is his son. Twice now you have almost denied him!

You dodged on that one too. You avoided explaining why your position is reasonable. And, what do you mean specifically by "that evidence is his son"? What is the evidence?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "deny". I merely acknowledged the possibility that God might not exist. I did not claim that God does not exist.

No!No!No!

 

[Robert.Evans]

You dodged on that one too. You avoided explaining why your position is reasonable. And, what do you mean specifically by "that evidence is his son"? What is the evidence?

Dodged on what one?
Why what position is reasonable?
The evidence is his son! Don't you understand that? Everything is about his son. If you have seen the son you have seen the Father Jh14. That is the evidence.

 

[viole]

Hello Madam,

Why is that a better answer? Is it more plausible to say consciousness evolves however it chooses - thoughts can surely do that, right - than to say physical matter can evolve which ever way it chooses? You seem to have the ability to accept matter and laws just being there.
And how can "laws" exist somewhere? Where do they exist?

You problem is that you see everything as the product of some conscious process, without any evidence that this is the case. When you ask about matter evolving whichever way it chooses, you just confirm that. Matter does not choose, and there is no logical link between this fact and the idea that matter must then be the product of some conscious process. Unless we operate from a baseless assumption that conscious processes are more fundamental than the blind processes that lead to them.

And you contradict yourself. For, if everything is the product of an intelligence or conscious process, where do the laws that allow this consciousness to evolve come from? From a not intelligent realm of existence that just is?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sand Dancer]

I don't feel safe and secure. Perhaps non-believers feel safe and secure in though own rule based life.

I can't speak for non-believers, but I did feel safe when I was a Christian.

 

[leibowde84]

Dodged on what one?
Why what position is reasonable?
The evidence is his son! Don't you understand that? Everything is about his son. If you have seen the son you have seen the Father Jh14. That is the evidence.

No one alive today has seen the living Jesus, and no empirical evidence has surfaced regarding Christ's divinity. I agree, our BELIEF in Christ/God is based on faith, which is not certainty (that is actually the point). So, please explain what you mean by Christ being "evidence". In order to deny even the possibility that God doesn't exist, you would need to have irrifutable evidence. So, what is it?

 

[leibowde84]

Dodged on what one?
Why what position is reasonable?
The evidence is his son! Don't you understand that? Everything is about his son. If you have seen the son you have seen the Father Jh14. That is the evidence.

The position = your refusal to admit that it is possible that God does not exist.

 

[gnostic]

Dodged on what one?
Why what position is reasonable?
The evidence is his son! Don't you understand that? Everything is about his son. If you have seen the son you have seen the Father Jh14. That is the evidence.

That's not evidence.

Only a few things recorded in the gospels, are "verifiable", hence evidences, shown in the appearances or mentions of the few historical figures:

1. That Augustus was indeed emperor during the times of Herod the Great, the succession of Archelaus and Herod Antipas.
2. The governorship and census of Quirinius, happening during Augustus' reign.
3. The execution of John the Baptist at the order of Herod Antipas.
4. And lastly, the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

Four areas in the gospels that can be verified, as in "historically verified", by sources outside of the gospels.

But nothing else in those gospels have given (in details) can be verified.

The details of Jesus' birth and being crucified, Jesus miracles and all his teachings, cannot be independently verified.

And even when there are correlations between the gospels and external historical sources, like the 4 points that I had given above, the gospels tends to be inaccurate, and exaggerated or embellished, or pure inventions (fiction).

Take for instance of birth of Jesus, as described in the 2 gospels (Matthew and Luke).

In Matthew, there are Herod meeting the 3 wise men (magi), the massacre of all infants to boy of age 2 at Bethlehem and Joseph fleeing to Egypt. These 3 events are not mention at all in Luke's or among outside sources, which suggest to me that this is inventions of the author.

Flavius Josephus recorded in great details about Herod the Great, especially the murders and scandals revolving Herod, and yet there are no mentions of any massacre in Bethlehem.

And if we look at the gospel of Luke, we see more of gospel's inaccuracies and exaggerations. The governorship and census of Quirinius did happen, but not at the time (gospel) author said it happened. According to Luke (2:2), Quirinius became governor (legate) of Syria and the census took place in Judaea, as well as the birth of Jesus, during the time when Herod was alive. But according to other sources, including that of Flavius Josephus, the census and governorship didn't occur until 10 years AFTER the death of Herod the Great!

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was never in Syria during the time when Herod was still alive (Herod died in 4 BCE). He was serving as legate in Galatia, and very busy commanding army that was attempting to quell the rebellion the Homonadenses, in the mountainous terrains of Galatia and Cilicia, from 12 to 1 BCE.

The census didn't take place until Archelaus was banished from Judaea (6 CE), after ruling Judaea for 10 years. The only reason for the census to take place, because Augustus had decided to turn Judaea into a Roman province; kingdom turning into a new province, often involved in census taking place. Hence, the gospel is inaccurate with the timing of Jesus' birth, Herod and census.

Another inaccuracy regarding the census is Joseph travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem, to enrol in the census. The Roman census would only required census enrolment of people in their current place of residency, not at the place of birth or the people's ancestry or tribe. The Romans wouldn't have any interest in Joseph's tribe or ancestry, because it would have no relevancy to any future taxes that Joseph might pay. So the gospel (Luke) is not only inaccurate, but also like to embellish its narrative.

Another exaggeration regarding to the census, is Augustus ordering the provinces of his entire empire (2:1):

1 In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered.

No such world-wide census took place at that point in time.

Next, the beheading of John the Baptist. According to the gospels say this took place, after Herod Antipas promised to Herodias' or Herodias' daughter's dance - the head of John.

No such dance or promise in Josephus' account were mentioned. According to Josephus, the beheading took place is because Herod feared rebellion. And there are nothing to link John the Baptist to either Jesus or the Christian movement.

Hence, more exaggeration in the part of the gospels.

And lastly, Pontius Pilate. He was indeed a governor of Judaea (26 - 37 CE), but nothing indicate that he presided over Jesus trial, or that he would have sympathy for Jesus, whom he convicted, as recorded in the gospels. This cannot be verified. There are too many holes about Pilate and the trial. Judging by the narratives given, it would seem that Pilate feared the Jewish council and priesthood that he gave in to their wishes to have Jesus executed. This contradicts with Pilate's harsh reaction to rebellion or how he received from Philo, when he offended Jews by having dedication inscribed to Tiberius at the temple. Also, Romans don't ask for verdict of execution from the public.

Evidence is about verification. If you cannot verify any statement, then it is not evidence.

We cannot verify Jesus' words that if you seen the son, then you have seen the father. No one have seen God, so how could you possibly know if they are anything alike?

That's not evidence, that's just an empty boastful claim that no one can verify.

 

[Shad]

I would have thought a child could work out that science has nothing to do with proving/not proving God. Simply: if he exists, there would be no evidence for him as that is what he says, or, he doesn't, and therefore there would be no evidence for. The only reason you could wish to use science as an argument is to take it into your own realm of ideas and to turn the argument into something you can, falsely, refute.

Then your belief is subjective and anyone can dismiss it.

Your inability to accept that luck will not bring about everything and that intelligence is a better answer clouds your judegment. You must not make the fundamental atheist mistake of thinking someone else does not know just because you don't.

I never said anything about luck. Congratulations on your strawman argument. I hope you realize you just made a fallacious point due to your own ignorance.

The God that we understand is contingent on something else, yes. You have a failed understanding of the divine-principle and therefore your arguments are immature and wrong.

Irrelevant tripe. You just made your God not God as you do not know primary philosophical arguments for God that have been used for century upon century

 

[Shad]

Not really. Everybody is biased, historical Jesus studies postdate those on Socrates (making Socrates probably the most studied person in history prior to the early 20th century), and most importantly the historical Jesus quest began and continued to be biased against Christianity. To the extent religious biases exist in historical Jesus studies (and they do), they do in multiple ways. It is widely known, actually, that seminary tends to create atheists, agnostics, and liberal Christians out of fundamentalists as the entire framework of historical inquiry and other methodological tools of the NT scholar, theologian, etc., render problematic fundamentalist/conservative Christian apology.

It also rallies the troops so to speak.

So having presupposed the answer, you evaluate the question. It is hardly intellectually defensible to regard evidence counted for the historical Caesar as "moot" when it comes to the historical Herakles or Dionysus yet meaningful when it comes to other deified individuals. You assume certain results from historical inquiry whilst trying to critique vast swathes of said scholarship.

I presupposed nothing. It is a fact we have more evidence for Alexander and Caesar than for Jesus. Your point is moot since it is a strawman.

And we have more evidence for Herakles and other mythic figures. You can't use two standards of evidence by presuming the historicity without rendering the entire enterprise pointless.

Find me the coins made by Herakles and other mythical figures. You think there are two standards but it is still one. You just ignore the material evidence of my points and focus on textual evidence which was not my focus at all. Another strawman.

What do you mean "have begun!!!??" Even the ancient Greeks questioned whether he existed, and it is practically universally agreed that Homer never existed (although there are those who argue that both the Iliad and the Odyssey were written by a single author). And it has NOTHING to do with the material evidence. Nobody questions whether Euripides existed, whether Socrates did, whether Antiphon did, or whether most of those whom we know of did despite the fact that the vast majority are known through a handful of medieval manuscripts (and most in manuscripts in which they are quoted or referenced, not copies of texts written by them). The reason it is widely believed Pythagoras existed despite the fact that the earliest known biography of his life was written many centuries after his supposed lifetime while 60,000 books on the nature and existence of the historical Jesus were written in the 1800s alone has much to do with the fact that there are no Pythagoreans but many Christians. There is no Reimarus for the Mithraic mystery cult, no Strauß for Herakles, no Wells or Doherty or Carrier or Price for Socrates, etc.

Many still claim the stories we have are still based on the writings of Homer. Amusing you bring up material evidence, not textual evidence, yet ignore it for other figures I have mentioned. Again I am saying the evidence is weak and so of it is assumed to be evidence which could be mere references to Christian tradition.Tradition which is treated as fact.

Socrates also has issues for example Plato make him into a fool for a purpose. Aristophanes makes him into a comedy piece. Do you think Socrates was a fool or do you remove these characteristics? It is a useless exercise in attempting to find the historical Socrates. His only use is as a figure is what he represents in other people's work much as with Jesus. He becomes a device not a historical person. Yet with Jesus people far to often treat the Gospels as reliable, a presupposition. They treated Talmud references as evidence when it could be merely using him as a tool like Plato did with Socrates.

You missed mine. Such evidence is all contingent. Historical inquiry isn't about what evidence exists but about how best to explain the evidence that exists, which includes everything from Greek drama to the spatiotemporal distribution of extant 2nd & 3rd century NT manuscripts. Using conquest as evidence, Romulus and Remus were the historical founders of Rome, Agamemnon existed, etc. We don't have material evidence that Alexander, Romulus & Remus, or Agamemnon conquered anything. We have sources indicating this, and after careful consideration any rational person should agree that Alexander clearly DID conquer and therefore existed, while the conquest of the other three occurred but is attributed to mythic figures.

We have material evidence of Alexanders conquests. Coinage, busts, founding of cities, destruction of cities such as Tyre. Your examples have none of this.

Rome existed, and Roman historians not only told us that this was do to the conquests of Romulus and Remus (whom, as Livy explains in a classic instantiation of the historicizing myth, were thought to be raised by wolves because of a misunderstanding of their adopted parents' names), but also that they and therefore the founding of Rome could be directly traced to the survivors of Troy. By your reasoning, they clearly existed. Or we could realize that the historical method is not to assume who is and isn't historical and then singularly apply in a haphazard method particular (and rather ad hoc) weights to particular types of evidence.

Good thing I was applying the method in conjunction with the material evidence to figures rather than shifting it to mythical figures. Strawman.

 

[gnostic]

I would have thought a child could work out that science has nothing to do with proving/not proving God.

No one said that science did prove or disprove God.

Christians make of noises, about their scriptures (bible), and church teachings and church traditions to being true, historically or scientifically, but often these claims are often refuted or disproven.

What cannot be proven about God, can be proven that your religion and interpretations of your scriptures to be false or wrong.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You problem is

A comment that suggest your mind is closed? Therefore the problem would be with you.

that you see everything as the product of some conscious process, without any evidence that this is the case.

I think there is evidence we can use, yes, if not only the absurd odds of everything existing in the first place.

When you ask about matter evolving whichever way it chooses, you just confirm that. Matter does not choose, and there is no logical link between this fact and the idea that matter must then be the product of some conscious process. Unless we operate from a baseless assumption that conscious processes are more fundamental than the blind processes that lead to them.

I consider that it is easier for consciousness to evolve and change into something new and beneficial than it is for matter to do that. I can imagine a house anyway I want, and change it within my mind in an instance. It is not so easy if the house is real! That simple analogy added with the complex nature of things and the incredible good fortune of this planet, should give for pause for concern.

And you contradict yourself. For, if everything is the product of an intelligence or conscious process, where do the laws that allow this consciousness to evolve come from? From a not intelligent realm of existence that just is?

Ciao

- viole

I think I have told you- from something more simple. A Singularity of Existence that is everything and nothing, that all things emante from.
You perhaps think it all emanates from some sort of energy that changes by blind chance and random processes (processes that we have to accept will work as there is no intelligence behind it) and becomes our universe at some point. Why is that answer without intelligence better than one with? Because you don't believe?
The universe views itself through the lens of man.
How can you accept that sentient beings can arrive on a planet after all that? Where does this invisible consciousness come from? It appears to replicate God being invisible and being the most important part of a person. Fascinating, is it not, that the most important part of us cannot be seen? What is he trying to show you? Is that too simple an answer?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That's not evidence.

Only a few things recorded in the gospels, are "verifiable", hence evidences, shown in the appearances or mentions of the few historical figures:

1. That Augustus was indeed emperor during the times of Herod the Great, the succession of Archelaus and Herod Antipas.
2. The governorship and census of Quirinius, happening during Augustus' reign.
3. The execution of John the Baptist at the order of Herod Antipas.
4. And lastly, the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

Four areas in the gospels that can be verified, as in "historically verified", by sources outside of the gospels.

1) Almost all the evidence for these "facts" come from the NT
2) One of them is wrong
3) To the extent historical verification is possible, there need not be any texts or similar evidence outside the gospels to verify particular historical components of them.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No one alive today has seen the living Jesus, and no empirical evidence has surfaced regarding Christ's divinity. I agree, our BELIEF in Christ/God is based on faith, which is not certainty (that is actually the point). So, please explain what you mean by Christ being "evidence". In order to deny even the possibility that God doesn't exist, you would need to have irrifutable evidence. So, what is it?

Yahshuah is the evidence. You don't need to see something with one of your five senses to know it is right, exists, or true. You believe. I have told you more than once, that is GRACE and is NOT of your OWN doing. It is from God. Eph 2.8 tells you that... and that not of yourselfs, it is the gift of God- as it is written.

So you have not evidence, you have PROOF, that you carry deep within you. Now how simple is that? And how easy to accomplish without any learning, and none of your doing, so you can boast of nothing. For surely if I learn of my own, I have something to boast of, but the lord shows that whilst in the body, he died for man, and now in the Spirit, he dwells within us, as it is written, has made his abode in us, with us.

 

[viole]

I think I have told you- from something more simple. A Singularity of Existence that is everything and nothing, that all things emante from.
You perhaps think it all emanates from some sort of energy that changes by blind chance and random processes (processes that we have to accept will work as there is no intelligence behind it) and becomes our universe at some point. Why is that answer without intelligence better than one with? Because you don't believe?
The universe views itself through the lens of man.
How can you accept that sentient beings can arrive on a planet after all that? Where does this invisible consciousness come from? It appears to replicate God being invisible and being the most important part of a person. Fascinating, is it not, that the most important part of us cannot be seen? What is he trying to show you? Is that too simple an answer?

The way I see it is that you also believe that everything emanates from something that is not intelligent: namely your singularity of existence that is everything and nothing, whatever that means

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's not evidence.

Only a few things recorded in the gospels, are "verifiable", hence evidences, shown in the appearances or mentions of the few historical figures:

1. That Augustus was indeed emperor during the times of Herod the Great, the succession of Archelaus and Herod Antipas.
2. The governorship and census of Quirinius, happening during Augustus' reign.
3. The execution of John the Baptist at the order of Herod Antipas.
4. And lastly, the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

Four areas in the gospels that can be verified, as in "historically verified", by sources outside of the gospels.

But nothing else in those gospels have given (in details) can be verified.

The details of Jesus' birth and being crucified, Jesus miracles and all his teachings, cannot be independently verified.

And even when there are correlations between the gospels and external historical sources, like the 4 points that I had given above, the gospels tends to be inaccurate, and exaggerated or embellished, or pure inventions (fiction).

Take for instance of birth of Jesus, as described in the 2 gospels (Matthew and Luke).

In Matthew, there are Herod meeting the 3 wise men (magi), the massacre of all infants to boy of age 2 at Bethlehem and Joseph fleeing to Egypt. These 3 events are not mention at all in Luke's or among outside sources, which suggest to me that this is inventions of the author.

Flavius Josephus recorded in great details about Herod the Great, especially the murders and scandals revolving Herod, and yet there are no mentions of any massacre in Bethlehem.

And if we look at the gospel of Luke, we see more of gospel's inaccuracies and exaggerations. The governorship and census of Quirinius did happen, but not at the time (gospel) author said it happened. According to Luke (2:2), Quirinius became governor (legate) of Syria and the census took place in Judaea, as well as the birth of Jesus, during the time when Herod was alive. But according to other sources, including that of Flavius Josephus, the census and governorship didn't occur until 10 years AFTER the death of Herod the Great!

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was never in Syria during the time when Herod was still alive (Herod died in 4 BCE). He was serving as legate in Galatia, and very busy commanding army that was attempting to quell the rebellion the Homonadenses, in the mountainous terrains of Galatia and Cilicia, from 12 to 1 BCE.

The census didn't take place until Archelaus was banished from Judaea (6 CE), after ruling Judaea for 10 years. The only reason for the census to take place, because Augustus had decided to turn Judaea into a Roman province; kingdom turning into a new province, often involved in census taking place. Hence, the gospel is inaccurate with the timing of Jesus' birth, Herod and census.

Another inaccuracy regarding the census is Joseph travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem, to enrol in the census. The Roman census would only required census enrolment of people in their current place of residency, not at the place of birth or the people's ancestry or tribe. The Romans wouldn't have any interest in Joseph's tribe or ancestry, because it would have no relevancy to any future taxes that Joseph might pay. So the gospel (Luke) is not only inaccurate, but also like to embellish its narrative.

Another exaggeration regarding to the census, is Augustus ordering the provinces of his entire empire (2:1):



No such world-wide census took place at that point in time.

Next, the beheading of John the Baptist. According to the gospels say this took place, after Herod Antipas promised to Herodias' or Herodias' daughter's dance - the head of John.

No such dance or promise in Josephus' account were mentioned. According to Josephus, the beheading took place is because Herod feared rebellion. And there are nothing to link John the Baptist to either Jesus or the Christian movement.

Hence, more exaggeration in the part of the gospels.

And lastly, Pontius Pilate. He was indeed a governor of Judaea (26 - 37 CE), but nothing indicate that he presided over Jesus trial, or that he would have sympathy for Jesus, whom he convicted, as recorded in the gospels. This cannot be verified. There are too many holes about Pilate and the trial. Judging by the narratives given, it would seem that Pilate feared the Jewish council and priesthood that he gave in to their wishes to have Jesus executed. This contradicts with Pilate's harsh reaction to rebellion or how he received from Philo, when he offended Jews by having dedication inscribed to Tiberius at the temple. Also, Romans don't ask for verdict of execution from the public.

Evidence is about verification. If you cannot verify any statement, then it is not evidence.

We cannot verify Jesus' words that if you seen the son, then you have seen the father. No one have seen God, so how could you possibly know if they are anything alike?

That's not evidence, that's just an empty boastful claim that no one can verify.

You make many comments there. I am not going to argue the historicity of it as for me, it doesn't matter. God exists and sends his son to me. That is how I know that the Father exists. You wish me to deny that which I know? I will not do it; cannot do it. You make a mistake of assuming that spiritual events will be evidenced in the same way as physical events. They will not. Whatever is of value is always hidden.
But thank you for your comments. Interesting historically. BTW, I believe B Thieing is correct about the political agenda within most of the NT, so the text has to be understood in a different way to normal. It is historical, but do the characters point to who we think? that is the question. Easy to mislead if they don't.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Then your belief is subjective and anyone can dismiss it.



I never said anything about luck. Congratulations on your strawman argument. I hope you realize you just made a fallacious point due to your own ignorance.



Irrelevant tripe. You just made your God not God as you do not know primary philosophical arguments for God that have been used for century upon century

Intelligence or blind chance; take your pick.

 

[Robert.Evans]

can be proven that your religion and interpretations of your scriptures to be false or wrong.

I'll wait.

 

[ArtieE]

Intelligence or blind chance; take your pick.

You mean the existence of your god is due to either intelligence or blind chance?