Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But since they fail so abyssally they are not the best of evidence either.
Then you once again make prophecy worthless. Which means you are claiming that God is incompetent in getting his message out and that there probably are no real prophecies.
God's plan/purpose for you is No one will die - Isaiah 25:8
No mortal can live forever on earth since the physical body is subject to death and decomposition.
Mortal humans will live forever in Heaven since the soul is immortal.
The Messengers of God did not fail at all. The only ones who failed are the people who did not recognize the Messengers.
Prophecies are not worthless. They are very valuable if you have the correct interpretation.
God is perfectly competent, that comes with being infallible.
As I said, you bring private definitions and private "reasoning" to the discussion. My definitions are those of academia, not of my own invention. A belief is justified when it is the product of valid reasoning applied to true premises. No other kind of belief can be called justified by this technical definition of the word. When you say it's enough to justify belief for you anyway, you're saying that you hold unjustified beliefs, which can only be believed by faith.
Private means personal rather than secret in this context.
Who does that? For starters, one doesn't become facile with those methods without confidence in them, and once that happens, the closest you'll see to what you describe is the suspension of disbelief I described for myself while road testing Christianity. If you see a competent critical thinker suddenly abandon his ways, he's suffered a crisis of some sort. Antony Flew, a renowned atheist philosopher who was said to have become a deist in his dotage, may have been such a person.
No biblical prophecies are specific. I defined the word for you in this context already. When an event is described specifically and comes to pass, the event is recognized unambiguously as the fulfillment. Think of the example of the specific game ("game 5") of the1969 World Series being prophesied right before it occurred, with specific players accomplishing specific feats in a specified order. No other baseball game could be mistaken for the one meant. This is unlike biblical prophecy, where one is free to call whatever he likes its fulfillment, as with calling Christ the fulfillment of Old Testament messianic prophecy. Who doesn't also fulfill that prophecy if Jesus does?
Disagree. Anybody can call themselves a messenger of God, and most will develop a following if they have the gift of gab as well. Jim Jones and David Koresh did
It would have to have been improbable as human beings judge such things before its fulfillment. Consider the baseball game again. The outcome was only history to the son reporting it from the future. The whole point of the exercise is that the infinitesimal probability of the game unfolding as predicted is what makes it fulfillment convincing that its prophet had transhuman foreknowledge.
Are you expecting atheists to agree with that? As best I can tell, biblical prophecies are made by people with no special knowledge.
And you still don't see the problem with that undermining the purpose of prophecy.
We have no bona fide prophets of gods to reveal anything - just people making the claim and others believing them.
That assumption, while acceptable to you according to your private definition of justified, is considered unjustified by the academic community.
Do you think that the Christians are being treated unfairly here by the critics of their religion? You're one of them. They make claims many of which you reject. They say that their scriptures confirm their beliefs, and you disagree with them. It's exactly what happens in the Baha'i threads, but with you on the apologist's side in that one. You explain your beliefs and offer your evidence, which are rejected by others.
Are you being serious? Science has nothing whatsoever to say about the question of God, as it is not a scientific question! Science examines nature, not the transcendent. That is the domain of philosophers and mystics, not scientists!
Of course you would say that, as a former fundamentalist. I predicted you would say something akin to not a "true Christian" comment, when presented with views that are not fundamentalist, mythic-literal ideas about God. That's what they do, so you're just following suit.
So you define what God is by your own mind, and then say that can't be possible, and conclude it cannot exist? Have you tried rethinking your ideas about what God is instead?
In my experience, the only thing hiding God is our own minds simply not seeing what is directly before us. That's a problem with us, not the Divine.
Well, yes, what you just said there is confusing, even to me.
"A supreme being who doesn't wish to be observed"? Again, I don't see God as a human being, which is what you describe "who doesn't wish"?Again, why do you think that is the only way to determine whether or not there was an actual human being that lived which gave rise to the stories contained in the gospels, and the Christian movement as a whole? What scholar claims that is the only criteria? I'll name one who doesn't believe what you are saying who you already referenced earlier. Bart Ehrman. Have you ever read any of his books?
Sure, there were many teachers in that era. But what evidence is there for the supernatural bits? That's where the stories get implausible and embellished. It's notable the Gospels are not consistent in their details. It's interesting how the myth of Jesus mirrors stories from Egypt and pagans. We can't ignore those facts with our reasoning about Jesus.
Well that wouldn't be an accusation, but a rebuttal, and assertion. And let's note that comparing Jesus to other fictional characters is MORE likely true and plausible than to believe the Jesus myth at face value. There is no rational reason to believe Jesus was everything the Gospels say, and what is popular among Christian belief. The whole Jesus story is absurd and suggests an incompetent God at work. I have argued numerous times that it makes vastly more sense to interpret the Jesus story and myth as symbolic, not literal. I also argue that it makes more sense to think of heaven and hell as metaphors for one's state of mind in life, not some destination after death.
Your "critic's creed" is biased. It opened the door to criticism itself. It didn't suggest you are interested in truth, but in justifying assumptions, and proping up existing belief. That's fine, it's preferable that this is realized instead of being biased against those actually seeking true answers.
I argue that it is scientists who are transcendent, not believers. I assert this because it is the religious who work to maintain a tradition of belief, a status quo. It is scienists working towards moving past obsolete belief and explaining what is true about the universe. Theologians and philosophers do work to keep old assumptions and beliefs alive, but with the dwindling interest in religion the "new car smell" isn't making much of an impact. Let's note that many who seek to keep traditions alive are those who find comfort in a sort of stability, but culture and life is dynamic and we as a species move towards new and different experiences and definitions. Look at how hard conservative Christians work to limit trans people, and that is largely due to their failure to limit gays, and before that their failure to limit racial equality. DeSantis is hell-bent on destroying "woke" culture, and in doing this he promotes an obsolete image of America as white and conservative. Why not accept change? What are these people afraid of, and making others suffers for their insecurities?Are you being serious? Science has nothing whatsoever to say about the question of God, as it is not a scientific question! Science examines nature, not the transcendent. That is the domain of philosophers and mystics, not scientists!
Why wouldn't it be? Are you suggesting there are different physics in other galaxies? I will feel confident in saying that Yahweh is no where to be found outside of our little planet.
Your understanding paralyzes tour thinking.
Good thing I never mentioned my values, or yours.
You should spray paint this on the side of your local police station since it is "true".
Miss Nonconformity?Yeah, my God, She disagrees. Such fun.
please PLEEEZE don't tell me you believe that malarkey about Adam and Eve 6000 years ago.
Of course I know Ehrman. He's the one who wrote: