| Jesus Christ | |
|
Rainer - Student |
Plain and simple, I want your opinions on the following things. Please give me reasons behind your beliefs. I may or may not post my standings on the matter. I just recently resigned from such a topic on another forum because it was taking up too much of my time writing replies. I've just grown curious about how the people of the Academy view Jesus, especially after seeing MINDofSIN's profile pic. Your beliefs regarding him. - Are you a Christian? If so, why? Oh and if your an agnostic, I would rather this conversation stray away from a long debate on whether or not the truth on the matter is knowable. For this topic the term Christian should be applied to someone who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and who has committed their life to Him. Who was He? - This includes who do you think He thought He was. If you state that He thought Himself to be a prophet, give me reasons. If you state He thought himself to be God, again, give me reasons. If you state he never existed, you best present evidence on the matter because that is easily refuted. What of his Resurrection? - The most important story of Christianity, without this Christian Faith is in vain. Refute it or Defend it. Please make sure you are actually refuting it or defending it, and that you are not just making empty comments. I do not want an analysis of Christianity or religions in general. I do however want an analysis of Jesus Christ Himself, be Him man or God. I've said this before, and I'm going to say it again, do not make empty comments. Oh yeah, and be civil. The last thing I want is a flame war between believers and non-believers. _______________ The Jedi formally known as Ranja. ---------------------- "I can list among my experience and skills: leadership, extensive travel, logistical organization, intimate understanding of firearms, and a knowledge of security measures at numerous banks." - Jesse James This post was edited by Rainer on Oct 10 2003 05:12pm. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Bandit - Student 
|
Sared, you stated : "The fact of the matter is, every human being can, will, and has had a chance to know God. Creation itself it a testimony to Him, so none has an excuse." I respectfully disagree. I think that fact that we are arguing about how we came to be is in fact an indication that it is not such an obvious answer to EVERY HUMAN. In fact, this is one of my objections to there being a God. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then he knows PRECISELY what I am thinking, what I will be thinking, and what exactly would make me believe in His existance. However, the mere fact that I don't feel there is enough evidence for His existance, implies that either 1) he is intentionally keeping himself unknown to me or 2) he is not the God of which most conceptualize. If He wants us to believe in Him out of faith, then that argument would not apply. However, that still makes no sense to me... Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing being create man after His image, only to not fail to let them know he exists? If He really wanted to give us Free Will to make a choice, then He would let us know what the all the options really are... _______________ Part-Time Player (Weekend Warrior). Recipient of the prestigious "Longest-Post-Ever Award" (bestowed on me by Flash on March 23rd, 2004) |
|
Sared - Retired 
|
Gonna post this, then will read some more. Aratan: He IS a merciful God. Otherwise I would be a smoldering pile of cinders right now.  The fact of the matter is, every human being can, will, and has had a chance to know God. Creation itself it a testimony to Him, so none has an excuse. Look at the human eye. Then look at the photoreceptive sensor on a protozoa. A protozoa has the ability to sense light and to go toward it. Now step it up a little. A frog or an ape has the ability to recognize complex objects and to perceive them. The human eye can see in three dimensions. It then sends this picture to the brain and then translate it, turn it upside down, and recognize it for what it is. The similarity of functions between the human eye and a frog eye does not show common ancestry. Rather, it shows a common Creator. Here is another thought. To be human, you have thirty-two pair, or sixty four chromosomes. If you have sixty-three or sixty-two, then you will still be human, but you will have a life condition like down syndrome. If you have sixty-six or sixty-two chromosomes, you are NOT human. Period. Now think about it, if we followed our course of 'evolution', and have developed, say, a third brain lobe or, the ability to see into the ultraviolet or infrared spectrums, wouldn't we have a few more chromosomes? Well... I have found such a creature! Yes! Ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to present to you, the one, the only, North American Fern! That right people! This plant has fuzzy leaflets, the ability to grow in nice warm climates, has a beautiful shade of green, and packs a whopping 152 chromosomes! Think about it. If we were to double our chromosomes, we would turn into the much sought after state of evolution, a plant! Somethings tells me that God didn't intend for us to sit around absorbing sunlight and water, while using photosynthesis to turn that wonderful schtuff into yummy gluclose! _______________ I'm crazy, not stupid. This comment was edited by Sared on Oct 29 2003 03:28am. |
|
Rainer - Student |
First off, I don't believe that anyone burns in Hell. The use of the word flames seems figurative. The Bible says that the Lake of Fire is the Second Judgement. It also says that death will be thrown into it, thus a judgement on death. Other references to flames seem to be symbolic of judgement. When Christ returns is he going to have a double edged sword coming out of his mouth and his body enshrouded with flames? No, those things are figurative, and the flames again are representing judgement. Don't get me wrong, every figure of speech has a literal meaning, so there is going to be great suffering, but its not going to be torture in the sense that someone or something is administrating it. Hell is a place of separation from God, this eternal separation brings about grief and emotional suffering that will be equivalent to the suffering of flames. The concept of Hell as a place of separation, and not a place of torture is crucial to understanding this. Once we sinned, God had a problem. The nature of an 'all powerful' being is that he cannot contradict himself. God cannot be in the presence of Sin. The payment for sin is death, not only mere physical death but also spiritual death. So what is God to do? He is a loving God, but at the same time He is a righteous God. His very nature destroys the sinful, but the people He loves are sinful. The answer? He sends His Son down in bodily form, and He goes around, spreading God’s Word. Satan sees this, and what a chance! God has put His only Son in Satan’s domain-now Jesus has to play by his rules! Satan uses Pilot, Herod, and other political leaders to try and kill Him. With Herod he fails, but he ultimately triumphs-and oh what a triumph it was. Not only did he kill Him, but he did so in glorious fashion. Humiliation, suffering, a cry to his father, the works! Wait a minute, he’s taking on the sins of the world, and in doing this anyone who asks can have forgiveness through him. Satan can no longer take souls with him to hell so easily, but who cares? Satan just killed the embodiment of God, who in their right mind would believe in a God who died at the hands of mortals, even if he was in bodily form. But to Satan’s dismay Jesus visited hell for merely three days before breaking out resurrected affirming his deity. The righteousness of God was fulfilled with his sacrifice, and now the loving God is free to accept all who ask for forgiveness. Why didn't God only create those who would love him? If you are forced to love someone, is that really love? The only way for there to truly be love is if there is a possibility for hate. Sin is a perversion of what God created as good. As far as suffering in the world, I would have to say that its cause is sin. I'm not saying that because you sin you will suffer, I'm definitely not saying that. Rather I'm saying that suffering is a product of sin. If someone chooses to sin and tortures someone else, the torture causes suffering. That’s a more drastic version of what I'm saying. If you want replace the word sin with unethical behavior, because some people seem to have a problem when you say sin because your alluding to something Biblical. Bandit - That’s a good question. I have not personally read those works but I know someone who most likely has. I'll talk with him and get back to you. Aratan - It is truly wrong that people try and scare other people into believing in Christ. It saddens me that there are people who go out and just say, "Follow Christ or go to Hell!" There are so many other aspects of it, and you can even rationalize your way into believing in Christ. In my opinion the concept is flawed anyway. Your saying you want to make them believe in Christ. You can't make anyone believe anything, the choice on what to believe is theirs. The only thing you do by telling everybody they're going to Hell is make them feel like they're being manipulated. _______________ The Jedi formally known as Ranja. ---------------------- "I can list among my experience and skills: leadership, extensive travel, logistical organization, intimate understanding of firearms, and a knowledge of security measures at numerous banks." - Jesse James This comment was edited by Rainer on Oct 28 2003 11:09pm. |
|
Orion - Retired 
|
Man things are getting creepy I agree with aratan again :/ _______________ When a Man lies he murder's some part of the world. These are the pale deaths which men misscall there lives. All this I cannot bear to witness any longer. Cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home? -Cliff Burton Owner of Smily's 1900th comment | <Lady_Catherine> i love your sexy white socks! | (Lady_Catherine) i adore u! | (Lady_Catherine) onion (Lady_Catherine) i lub u |
|
Smilykrazy - Retired 
|
LMAO CT!! Me too!!  _______________ RIP MOM 06/29/58-07/31/08 Married to Koyi Donita 4/30/11 |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
I just have one thing to comment: "Now, even after all this evidence proving science wrong, you still believe that you're right: Even if you're right, and I'm wrong, we both die, and become dust and that's it. On the other hand, if I'm right, then I go to heaven, and you burn in hell with satan for eternity. So which do you think is the safer choice? Just think about it." I've often seen people say God is merciful; if he is, then why should he let atheists burn in Hell, just because they don't believe in him? That seems quite mean to me, but I might be mistaken. Also, are you saying it's better to go for the safe bet? If you have to be frightened of the alternative to join a religion, then there's something wrong. |
|
Cloaked Thunder - Student 
|
Wow..... I have read a few posts and I must say, I'm not even going to begin posting. I will sit back and watch every1 else. _______________ Padawan of ShadowSith | Close JA Family: Darth Mobility, Katan, Jedi Prodigy, Virtue,D@rth M@ul, Virtue, Flash, Bandit, Yin Yang, JK-XIII, Faded, Silk Monkey, Skyler, `Orion, Aratan, SmilyKrazy, Faded Angel, and your mom  | woot!
|
|
Bandit - Student 
|
Perhaps you are right Ranja. At least the scope of the debate should be narrowed. There are simply too many points, such a wide breadth of material to cover, in such a forum. Quick question though.. Have you read any of the account of Jesus in the Nag Hammadi library? If so, how do you reconcile the mystical perspective that the gnostics held of Jesus with that of the early Catholic Church? Why are the Gnostics accounts discarded just because the early Catholic Church decided which books to cannonize? Surely the veracity of the Gnostics accounts and the Nag Hammadi library should not be questioned any more than the rest of the books that were chosen to be cannonized. _______________ Part-Time Player (Weekend Warrior). Recipient of the prestigious "Longest-Post-Ever Award" (bestowed on me by Flash on March 23rd, 2004) |
|
Bandit - Student
|
DarkSith, you stated "If you are going to make a claim about Christian beliefs, then at least be accurate. Never has anyone said that everything has to have a creator..." I'm sorry if I assumed this is what you were trying to say, but indeed, many people (and certainly some Christians) *DO* argue that everything has to have a creator (First Cause). I've had numerous debates over this very thing. I realize now that you were not trying to argue this position, but, it is a position argued by quite a few. _______________ Part-Time Player (Weekend Warrior). Recipient of the prestigious "Longest-Post-Ever Award" (bestowed on me by Flash on March 23rd, 2004) |
|
Koyi Donita - Student 
|
I would just like to ask everybody just joining our discussion to please go back to the beginning and read the full context of this forum. I think there have been many great posts here and some even can shed a little light to what is being discussed right now. Ranja, I have read on one of your earlier posts that you think only Calvinist's have the point of view that there is no free choice in excepting Christ. I have heard of Calvin and his teachings but never schooled myself in them, yet I believe this statement that nobody has free will to worship God. I trust in the Bible and the Bible alone as my foundation and pillar of truth and the Bible teaches that God chose those which He would have to be His people before the foundation of the Earth. I touched the scriptures on this fact in earlier posts and will do a study on it if you wish. After all, don't all of us seek truth? To Gentleman Loser I read on one of your earlier posts that you seek proof of mericles. Now the type of mericles that Jesus and His disciples performed from the Biblical view, (Healing of the sick, lame, blind, deaf, crippled, dumb[as in mute], and even raising the dead), were pictures or signs pointing to the spiritual healings that mankind needs today. Healing for the spiritually sick, (as in sin sick souls), spiritually lame, blind, deaf, crippled, dumb, and even spiritually dead for the penalty for sin is death. Does the Bible mean physical death? I don't believe so because the Bible is clear that there is two types of death's and God tells man, or probably more acturately believers, do no fear them that can destroy the boby but fear Him who can destroy both body and soul. The Bible teaches that the saved of Christ will upon dying go to be with Him in all of His glory and return with Him on the last day to judge the living and the dead. It is the soul that is resurrected by Christ and on the last day, all saved by His grace will receive new bodies that don't lust after sin which will perfectly compliment their born again souls that no longer lust for sin. Your proof of mericles can be seen all around you, but probably not where your looking. The churches and congregations of today aren't 100% right with the Bible nor is everyone that goes to one saved. However, we can find convicts, rapist, murderers, slanderers, and other horrible people have a sudden change in them to where they see the error in their ways. They actually repent of their sins and never desire to do them ever again. Not just people behind bars, but in every walk of life where the Word of God is being proclaimed, people are becoming saved and turning from their self centered ways. The spiritually blind are receiving spiritual eyes to where they can actually see God's Word. I'm not saying that everyone who picks up a Bible and studies it will learn all there is to learn nor will they receive spiritual eyes to see it. It's God's work to open one's eyes and ears to see and hear His Word. So to that fact, I would have to say that the mericles that you are looking for will never be found unless you come to an understanding that the physical wellbeing of man isn't what is important. The Bible is quick to tell us that one can have the whole world and yet they would have nothing if they weren't saved. Life is but a very small drop in the ocean of eternity so what does one actually receive in ones lifetime. No one can take anything from the world with them. To Darksith, I'm only asking you this in the most humble manner. This goes for all who would like to say that they know the way and they know it all concerning God and Jesus. Please read the Bible very carefully, especially the new testiment. The old testiment holds to the truths of the Bible as well although they can be a little harder to see. Your statement that Christ came to pay for EVERYONE's sins are totally contrary to what God says in His Word. Again please read my earlier posts for scripture that would highlight this fact and I would be happy to do a study on it to be posted here if you would like to know where to look for these scriptures. After all, it's a discussion on Christ we're having here and I think that would be a great look into His character being that in Him dwells the Godhead bodily. To Bandit and others which their very scientific views on everything, I'm ignorant to that type of debate. I will just leave writtings from another authur dealing with the Bible's historical evidence. The Bible tells about things before they happen. The prophet Isaiah talks about the Persian king Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), who would eventually restore the nation of Judah. Persia was a great kingdom, located in what is now the country of Iran. Isaiah wrote during the reign of the Judaean king Hezekiah, who died in 687 B.C., but Cyrus did not begin to reign as king of the Persian empire until after 600 B.C., more than 80 years after Isaiah left the scene. Only God could know the name of the man who would be the Persian king before he sat on the throne. Many historical prophecies of Jesus Christ were given 1,000 years before His birth. Every Old Testament book of the Bible refers clearly to Jesus. For example, notice the detail of Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and Micah 5:2. Faced with this historical evidence, we have only the following options. Either the Bible was written by Him for whom time is no barrier, or it is a joke, or it is a hoax in which people later scribbled in the prophecies to make the Bible look good, or it is an evil deception. The right choice is that the Bible alone is God's hold and true Word. The only thing I can suggest for those who don't believe in a God or thee God is to read the Bible. Check it out. I think I was told by someone that if a person were to read just one chapter in the Bible, which really isn't that much at all, a day that after 3 or so years they would have read the whole thing. Read it with what ever view of it you like, just read it. It truely is an amazing book that I believe could have only been written by God Himself through man. If someone suggested for me to read a book because I might profit something from it, I probably would even more if I could do it over a couple of years. It won't hurt anyone and at the very least, you waist some of your time in reading it but so what. We all waist time watching tv, playing games, posting on forums, etc.. Seriously, if there really isn't a God, or a afterlife or anything like that, then as stated earlier we will all just become dust. If we can spend time to debate/discuss, then I think we can search out all angles of it also. _______________ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom. 1:16 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17 I love my babyface. Smilykrazy is my baby and I love her. ...Swimming through the void we hear the Word, we lose ourselves but we find it all... System Of A Down.
|
|
Rainer - Student |
Maybe it's best not to debate this issue. There is too much to cover, and too little time. My objective was to talk about Christ, however to get anyone to even consider Christ you would have to first answer their objections to diety in general. Even if you can establish the possibility of diety then you would have to debate over the matter of evolution. If there is a possibility for diety, yet evolution takes the place of that diety, then you no longer even need to consider the possiblity for diety. After debating evolution then maybe you could move on to Christ. If people already have their mind made up that God cannot exist then there's no point in debating over whether or not his Son exists. Or rather am I looking at it wrong? Really if you can put a convincing case for Christ, then it may cause the person to revaluate their position concerning diety. Either way I don't know if we should really debate the matter, may just be another cause for tension. _______________ The Jedi formally known as Ranja. ---------------------- "I can list among my experience and skills: leadership, extensive travel, logistical organization, intimate understanding of firearms, and a knowledge of security measures at numerous banks." - Jesse James This comment was edited by Rainer on Oct 28 2003 05:13am. |
|
Ashyr - Student 
|
Sorry Ranga, I don't mean to get off the subject, but in reply to Bandit: If you are going to make a claim about Christian beliefs, then at least be accurate. Never has anyone said that everything has to have a creator, but everything is made by one creator: God. Since God is an almighty figure, he has always been, and there is nothing needed to create him. Oh, and maybe you're right about the apes thing. I'll look into it though. Sorry for assuming. And MINDofSIN, I don't believe in god just because I want to go to heaven, but that is a benefit. God has given us a gift; Jesus, who sacrificed himself, and paid the price for EVERYONE's sins. All we do is accept the gift he has already given to us, which is eternal life with God, and redemption from our sins. Otherwise, we would be banished to hell forever, which is the punishment for our sins that everyone commits (no, Christians are not perfect). _______________ Top ten reasons to get a better computer...|My fan |
|
Rainer - Student |
Extraordinary Claims There is a great amount of evidence that supports the gospels, however I think the burden of proof is relived some when you look into the authenticity of the Bible. If the news reports something that is very improbable, you believe it because the news has been accurate in reporting things in the past. The claim that was once extraordinary no longer requires extraordinary proof. The most important miracle of the New Testament, the resurrection has much evidence backing up its claims. Once Upon A Time I'm sorry, but this is one of the few times I literally laughed out loud when reading something on the internet. By your standards we should never trust any work of antiquity. Here is a prime example. Any historian would consider it outrageous to claim that The History of Thucydides is not authentic because of the time frame between the manuscripts we have and the original writing and events are so short! The funny part comes when you learn that the manuscripts we have, all eight of them, are from 1,300 years after the original writing. I could do this to any work of antiquity. Now lets compare that to the Bible, you already stated your proposed dates for authorship, and I would agree with you. The New Testament was written somewhere between 50-100 A.D. The earliest fragments that we have are from 114 A.D. We have whole books from 200 A.D. By 250 A.D. we have most of the New Testament, and by 325 A.D. we have the complete new testament. That is 225 years max after its original writing. We have 5,686 manuscripts in the Greek alone. We have yet another 19,284 manuscripts in other languages. If a myth or legend were to come up out of this short of a time period it would be the first time ever in history for it to do so. You also must remember that the gospels were written in the same generation that the events happened. If someone made an inaccurate account of the story do you think they'd just sit back and watch? If the Romans or Jewish Leaders saw it happening do you think that they would sit back and watch as Christianity rises yet again on a lie. In fact there aren’t any historical works of the time that argued that he didn’t do miracles, there are only works that talk about him in a demeaning way. I can’t remember if it was Josephus or Tacticus who said that Jesus was a man who wrought surprising feats. Now this doesn’t necessarily mean miracles, but it could be applied in that way. If this was a great lie, then you have 11 men who died martyrs, for something they knew for themselves was a lie. You must remember that the Gospels corroborate themselves, but that’s not all. The works of Josephus, Tacticus, Pleny the Younger, and other historical authors give reference to Jesus. Marks Gospel was written for the Gentiles in Rome. I doubt he would want to put something like the virgin birth in there. The only reason he would want to do so would to show fulfillment of prophecy, and since the majority of the Romans didn't study the law it would mean nothing to them. Just because one book doesn't mention an event, and another one does, it doesn't mean the event never took place, that should be common sense. Evolution Again There are a great many things I'd like to say concerning this, but I would like the conversation to stay on topic, so I will not comment. The Resurrection I believe this is one of the must important aspects of Christianity, and I can't find a way to rationally disregard it. >The Body Stolen! Can someone please tell me why disciples that went and stole the body of Christ would go and die for him? 11 out of the 12 died a martyr, and the 12 died of old age. Who would do this for something that they knew to be false. Yes people have in the past died for good causes, but where do you see an account where 11 people die for something they knew was a hoax. >Wrong Tomb? If it was the wrong tomb, then not only would the women who visited the tomb have had gotten the wrong tomb, but the disciples who buried him would have. Besides if they did, don't you think that the Romans would have happily produced the body at the first sign of the uprising of Christianity? >Swoooooooooooooon.... There are many things I have to say to the Swoon theory, but the most compelling evidence I see is that when pierced a mixture of blood and water came out, which is a sign of internal decomposition. He was quite obviously dead, the trained guard believed it, Pilot believed it, and so did everyone else. He had a guard placed at his tomb and the Roman seal was placed upon it. If that seal was broken the punishment was death. If the guards left the punishment was death. I don't see how this half living Jesus could move the boulder in front of the tomb, which by the way was put into place via levers, and then somehow appear to the guards in a way to make them run off. Remember, these guards would be put to death for leaving their posts, yet for some reason they fled. _______________ The Jedi formally known as Ranja. ---------------------- "I can list among my experience and skills: leadership, extensive travel, logistical organization, intimate understanding of firearms, and a knowledge of security measures at numerous banks." - Jesse James This comment was edited by Rainer on Oct 28 2003 01:39am. |
|
Bandit - Student
|
DarkSith, what is more plausible... A) life began with a single celled organism no matter how improbable or b) Life began as a deity? And if you say, well God has always been here, he didn't need to be created, then I would say to you that your argument is fallacious. If everything must have a creator, then why is God exempt? It seems to me much more likely that life began as a simple life form versus an infinitely powerful one. And you have more than two choices...either there is no god, or there is one of hundreds of different religions. Hope you pick the right one. Also, man didn't evolve from apes. We had a common ancestor. That's why we don't find bones of apes as fossils...apes hadn't evolved into their present form millions of years ago. The ancestor we had in common wouldn't be considered either ape or human. However, the two linages evolved differently into what we today call apes and humans. _______________ Part-Time Player (Weekend Warrior). Recipient of the prestigious "Longest-Post-Ever Award" (bestowed on me by Flash on March 23rd, 2004) This comment was edited by Bandit on Oct 27 2003 09:59pm. |
|
MINDofSIN - Student 
|
Does anyone else here think it's a bit selfish to only believe in God because you want to get into heaven? _______________ Jedi Academy Holocron http://jaholocron.ryanmh.com/ Why should our government send our soldiers to foreign soil to protect freedom of speech, when our freedom of speech is being taking away everyday by the same government. |
|
Ashyr - Student
|
Now, I just discovered this post, and read the last few replies. Now here's my opinion: I think it takes WAY more faith to belive: that two gasses came together, blew up, and created matter, and life that can spontanously evolve and generate it's self, than to belive that: an almighty creator came and made all these things. Since, if you want to be scientific, how in any way in the history of human physiolgy or geology, that two gasses (that came from nowhere) randomly combust, (science finds in countless cases that matter cannot convert in any way unless acted apon by energy[which there was no evidence of ] ) and somehow create matter, and life forms? Then, contrary to the law: "order cannot come from chaos", these spontaniously generated lifeforms start to form into different lifeforms. Now, in the study of genetics, cells of a certain species and kind, produce the same exact cell. Though, it has been lately proved that every cell in a life-form contains DNA for every kind of cell in that life-form that is unused (making cloning possible). So, the DNA remains the same from generation, to generation. Now, they come with the idea that mutations over thousands of years can eventually change species, but studies show, that not only do mutations RARELY pass on to the next generation, but they still are unique to that speicies. That's why never, in the observation and record of animals, have humans seen a species actually change. Assuming all this is possible, if, for say, that humans came from apes, right? If we did, there would either: Still be a middle link, because they are still evolving, or: All the apes would be gone because they all evolved and they are all gone. _______________ Top ten reasons to get a better computer...|My fan This comment was edited by Ashyr on Oct 30 2003 01:58am. |
|
Orion - Retired 
|
*blinks* nice read bandit  _______________ When a Man lies he murder's some part of the world. These are the pale deaths which men misscall there lives. All this I cannot bear to witness any longer. Cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home? -Cliff Burton Owner of Smily's 1900th comment | <Lady_Catherine> i love your sexy white socks! | (Lady_Catherine) i adore u! | (Lady_Catherine) onion (Lady_Catherine) i lub u |
|
Bandit - Student
|
Okay...What I find untrustworthy in the Christ story (and without digressing to deities in general, although those arguments would necessitate precluding the Christ story also). 1. The Christ story is an extraordinary claim without very compelling evidence. The more extraordinary the claim, the greater the burden of proof. However, as Gentleman Loser pointed out, there is no proof of the supernatural claim of the Christ story. I don't accept the Christ story for the same reason most people don't accept that MS. Cleo is really a psychic... there is no compelling evidence to believe it and it goes against everything we know to be true. 2. Mark wasn't written until about 60 or 70 AD, by second and third hand accounts. Would we even begin to consider this as a reliable source if it was any other document? Doubtful. Certainly not as the compelling evidence needed to ensure the veracity of an extraordinary claim. Indeed, the bible itself is often referred to as both the claim and the evidence which is circular! There should be accounts to corroborate the story of Christ, instead though, the only accounts are in the Nag Hammadi library which show a completely different depiction of Christ. Sure, there are some historical truths in the writings, but as to the things that are extraordinary, there is no other evidence besides a book written 40 years after the fact by a second hand party. 3) Paul doesn't mention many of the events that occured in the gospel. Paul also fails to credit jesus for obvious teachings. Even mark didn't mention the virgin birth or appearances after being risen. The later gospels (like Matthew) have saints rising from the dead and going into cities. Suggests a growing myth. IOW, even the gospels themselves aren't consistent. 4) It just seems like a coincidence that many parts of the story have so much in common with earlier stories. It's like those stories were grafted onto Christianity as it evolved. I think what actually happened and the religion that evolved from it over the next 500 years were completely different. An example would be the concept of the Trinity. This concept is accepted as a basic tenet of the bible by most Christians today, although it is not written as such in the bible. Jesus never said, my father, the holy spirit and I are actually three and yet one, a trinity...he never even referred to themselves as a sort of triumvirate. This interpretation of the bible came about at the Council of Nicaea (sp?). So...those are some reasons, but there are even more. The most compelling reasons in my eyes are the arguments against a deity in general, but I will save those for another time. Personally, let me say that I REALLY wish I was wrong. I would like to believe there is a God. In fact, I would love to believe there is a God. I just can't bring myself to believe that which I know isn't true (which would take me into another argument on why God can't exist...at least the Christian God). I mean, my father is a minister, my grandfather was a minister, my uncle is a minister, my cousin is a missionary, my sister is finishing seminary as I type this... I love them all and would never want to change their views. I think there is a deepseated emotional need that is filled by believing in something greater than ourselves. I wish I had that. But I just can't believe something just because I want to... _______________ Part-Time Player (Weekend Warrior). Recipient of the prestigious "Longest-Post-Ever Award" (bestowed on me by Flash on March 23rd, 2004) |
|
Orion - Retired
|
Well said Gent _______________ When a Man lies he murder's some part of the world. These are the pale deaths which men misscall there lives. All this I cannot bear to witness any longer. Cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home? -Cliff Burton Owner of Smily's 1900th comment | <Lady_Catherine> i love your sexy white socks! | (Lady_Catherine) i adore u! | (Lady_Catherine) onion (Lady_Catherine) i lub u |
|
Gentleman Loser - Ex-Student 
|
I dont believe that the story of Christ is true because I have yet to see any evidence that miracles exist. Conversly I am repeatedly faced with the evidemce of rational, scientific explanations for existence in my everyday life. BTW, you say that evolution is not a question of science vs christianity? Then does the Christian relegion accept evolution as being more accurate than the creationist explanation of man? Science has been wrong in the past, but science doesnt clain to have all the answers. The answers it does have, however, can be demontrated true by experimentation. The evidence of early earth having had a 'reducing atmosphere' (ammonia, hyrdrogen etc) now seems to be non-existant, granted. There is however, evidence that early earth had both an oxidizing and an earlier, neutral atmosphere. Amino acids would have found it more difficult to form in a neutral atmosphere, but they can do so. Studies of life in the archaean (3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago) have suggested the existence of bacteria and single-celled algae. These studies seem to confirm theories that life formed this way. 'In a pond' for want of a better term. The evidence for a non-supernatural universe is overwhelming. The evidence for the existance of god, a life after death, and of a miraculous christ is very slim indeed. Mostly hearsay. I don't see what's so difficult to accept about the formation of 'life in a pond'. DNA is just 4 chemicals spun into a double helix. Scientist have actually created artificial DNA, not just amino acids as in Millers' experiment. If man can accomplish this with our limited intellects, and do so in a time span of a few hundred years after the dark ages, why is it difficult to accept that life could form naturally in a similar way over a time frame of billions of years? Where a spiritual person sees patterns and meaning, I see co-incidence.  _______________ "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" Bhagavad Gita & J. Robert Oppenheimer |
|
Rainer - Student |
The topic is Jesus Christ, so I would rather it just pertain to him. When I have time I'll post evidences for Christ, but right now I got something else to do. _______________ The Jedi formally known as Ranja. ---------------------- "I can list among my experience and skills: leadership, extensive travel, logistical organization, intimate understanding of firearms, and a knowledge of security measures at numerous banks." - Jesse James |
|
Bandit - Student
|
"I think I’ll restate my original question to you so that it stays on topic, why do you find the story of Christ untrustworthy?" I would ask you just the opposite. Why should anyone find the story of Christ trustworthy? Also, if you want to know why I find the story of Christ untrustworthy, do you want it to pertain to just Christ, or deities in general? _______________ Part-Time Player (Weekend Warrior). Recipient of the prestigious "Longest-Post-Ever Award" (bestowed on me by Flash on March 23rd, 2004) |
|
Rainer - Student |
My friend, you are mistaken. Evolution as our origin is not a case of Christianity vs. science, science itself is its own opponent. At the time of the publishing of Origin of the Species it was a very popular belief that life could spontaneously generate itself under certain conditions. An example would be maggots somehow generating themselves in meat, or bacteria growing. For him to speculate that "some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes" would have been perfectly acceptable at the time. However what evidence do we have today to show that life can spontaneously generate itself? For some reason scientists can let go the idea that maggots spontaneously generate themselves out of meat but can't seem to let go of the idea of life forming out of a puddle. Instead they just say, oh well if you give it a few more billion years it could happen. You may refer to Miller's experiment, but they used chemicals that they thought would create favorable results, they had no proof for what the early earth's atmosphere was made of. Scientific advances have shown that the methane, ammonia, and hydrogen needed would not have existed in a primitive earth. The pattern you mentioned, does repeat itself again and again, but the only thing it attacks is the notion of macro-evolution as origin. Most humanists accuse Christians of holding to their beliefs and not even considering that they could be wrong, while the same humanists hold to their ideas so religiously the same is true for them. There have been many scientists over that past years who have given up their belief in evolution, and I don’t mean Christian scientists. Unless you look at it from a Calvinist point of view the Bible does advocate free will. As far as miracles are concerned, if God created the universe, then why would he be confined by the limitations of this world? I would agree, miracles do not lie in the confines of science, because science by its very nature only deals with the natural. However laws shown by science lie under certain conditions. Someone drops something, you catch it, and it stops falling. By catching it did you defy a scientific law? Absolutely not, your merely intervening. If the supernatural is messing around with the natural then the laws no longer meet their set conditions. I think I’ll restate my original question to you so that it stays on topic, why do you find the story of Christ untrustworthy? _______________ The Jedi formally known as Ranja. ---------------------- "I can list among my experience and skills: leadership, extensive travel, logistical organization, intimate understanding of firearms, and a knowledge of security measures at numerous banks." - Jesse James This comment was edited by Rainer on Oct 26 2003 08:05pm. |
|
Gentleman Loser - Ex-Student
|
Don't get me wrong here, I think the bible contains great wisdom. I just don't believe in god or life after death. I have nothing against those who do believe in a hereafter. The problem as I see it, is that relegion can only be accepted in areas of scientific doubt. Whenever science has examined the world around us, it has dispelled myths previously held true. It was the case not long ago that everyone accepted the notion of creation in 7 days. Science proved this was wildy innacurate, and relegion either retreated (by declaring the story of creation as not being literal!!) or just flat out refused to accept the evidence (scientific creationism being taught in southern US schools). This pattern repeats itself again and again as scientific knowledge increases. The new testament relays the story and teachings of jesus and prophecy of the end times. I don't believe that jesus could have performed miracles, because science tells us otherwise. I cant believe in prophecy, as this denies another scientific principle(that of uncertainty), not to mention that it would mean free-will does not exist. Yet if the bible is to be believed, god gave man free will... Just one of the many contradictions in the bible. Now there's also the argument of which relegion is the right one? Every relegion says they're right, and that clearly cannot be the case. From there, its a short jump to the possibility that no religion is right. I could go on and on with this kind of thing, but I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. If people want to learn more, there are a great number of scientific and philsophical works that could be read online. _______________ "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" Bhagavad Gita & J. Robert Oppenheimer |
|
Bandit - Student
|
Ranja, I think your analogy actually works in MY favor for an argument. Pretend I am the bear, and God is the human. Despite my complete and utter lack of understanding about what God is trying to do (help me), I am in fact aware of his presence. That was my point. Despite a finite mind being incapable of understanding an infinite mind, and the concepts it could have, that would not prevent the finite mind from understanding that the infinite mind exists. I might not be able to understand what a god thinks, but I should be able to deduce he exists with my finite mind, just as the bear was aware of the human. _______________ Part-Time Player (Weekend Warrior). Recipient of the prestigious "Longest-Post-Ever Award" (bestowed on me by Flash on March 23rd, 2004) |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |