The Truth of All Other Religions vs. Christianity

[H'ethetheth]

Why is this thread now about mass delusions?

[fromdownunder]

Perhaps, but I can ultimately only speak for myself, and I've yet to participate in a mass "seeing" as purportedly occurred at Fatima, so I am left with the task of explaining to myself what might have occurred there as best I can. Being skeptical means I try to find more mundane explanations for what happened, something that will make sense in terms of what we know of the universe, rather than what we don't know. I don't doubt that the people experienced something, but I do doubt it was anything exceptional, except perhaps in a psychological sense.


M.

Here is some pure speculation as to what may have happened at Fatima. I cannot, nor will I try to defend it, because it is not possible to do so.

Many thousands of religious people are gathered together expecting a miracle. It is a miserable cloudy day, but the sun breaks through the clouds at one point.

Most/all of the crowd would notice this, and some of them look up at the sun, point and say something like "look what the sun is doing". Others say the same thing, and talk to the people next to them, who suddenly see something that is not actually happening.

Now were people from what was apparantly a devoted religious crowd going to look at the person standing next to them, and say "I don't see anything unusual", or are they going to agree that something unusual was going on. In such a situation, it might be possible that people did not see anything unusual, but did not want to look like they were not seeing a miracle, so they agreed. Peer pressure? Who really knows?

"The Emperer has no clothes?"

Norm

[shuttlt]

OK. I'm restating the arguments of more knowledgable people than myself, but this thread is rambling chronically. So far as I can see, this is because the gounds of the discussion haven't been nailed down.

I think the question boils down to this. Imagine another poster, call her Kurious Kali. She professes to believe in Hinduism in just the same terms as Kurious Kathy does in Christianity. She can point to the miracle of the milk (and umpteen other miracles as 'proof'). Are there any grounds for choosing to prefer Kurious Kathy to her.

I can only see four ways out of this.....

1. There is a rational justification for prefering Kurious Kathy over Kurious Kali.
2. My hypothetical is inadiquate because Kurious Kali's miracles and/or descriptions of her religious experience would in fact be inferior to Kurious Kathy's.
3. We must decide this on non-rational grounds.
4. We give up trying to choose.

My money is on Kurious Kathy's argument being based on a combination of 2. and 3. It would help my tired brain a lot if we got away from arguing whether there is a way to distinguish between two things that we have effectively defined as being indistinguishable.

Tom

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why is this thread now about mass delusions?


What better way to discuss the truth of a particular religion?:)

[H'ethetheth]

What better way to discuss the truth of a particular religion?:)
Point taken. :footinmou

[Moochie]

Here, Gord posted this: http://www.milkmiracle.com/

So why do Christians believe the Fatima miracle and not this one... or do they believe this one... ? What makes one more believable as a "miracle" from the divine than the other. If dualism were true, then both miracles are equally likely to be "evidence" for such, right?

Do you think of "other explanations" when it doesn't confirm to your indoctrination, but consider it "evidence of a miracle" when it does? If so, congratulations-- you are a human being experiencing confirmation bias to prove to yourself what you've come to believe is true!

View your miracle through the "milk miracle" lens and see how you sound to this skeptic. Believers in that miracle can make the same arguments as you. It doesn't make their miracle true.

The whole premise is absurd-- this idea that there are these invisible spirits with special powers running around doing tricks that defy physics to "reward" people who've managed to "believe in" them. It's so... silly.
If such entities existed and had such powers their displays are far from convincing or impressive-- and they are indistinguishable from the known ways humans fool each other and themselves. If they really wanted to reward "believers", I can think of much more worthwhile "tricks". To me, this is evidence of how very easy it is to trick people once you get them to believe that "faith" is ennobling and a good way to know "divine secrets".

It astonishes me just how puerile these latter day "miracles" tend to be. They mark believers as somewhat lacking in maturity and sophistication, not to mention some sound education.


M.

[Moochie]

Here is some pure speculation as to what may have happened at Fatima. I cannot, nor will I try to defend it, because it is not possible to do so.

Many thousands of religious people are gathered together expecting a miracle. It is a miserable cloudy day, but the sun breaks through the clouds at one point.

Most/all of the crowd would notice this, and some of them look up at the sun, point and say something like "look what the sun is doing". Others say the same thing, and talk to the people next to them, who suddenly see something that is not actually happening.

Now were people from what was apparantly a devoted religious crowd going to look at the person standing next to them, and say "I don't see anything unusual", or are they going to agree that something unusual was going on. In such a situation, it might be possible that people did not see anything unusual, but did not want to look like they were not seeing a miracle, so they agreed. Peer pressure? Who really knows?

"The Emperer has no clothes?"

Norm


That's as likely an explanation as any, IMO. If you've ever witnessed a contagious fear overcome a group or crowd of people, you'll know exactly how easy it is for people to "see" something that isn't there. The mind plays tricks.


M.

[plumjam]

Why is this thread now about mass delusions?
It isn't. That's just a trick of the light.. an entirely natural phenomenon.. taking place between your monitor and your retina. That is reinforced, mentally, by your prior expectation (which we're now assuming, even though you expected something else) that this thread would veer off into the territory of shared delusional perceptions.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Since words appear on the screen only through an act of special dispensation from the Deity, how can you be sure?

[plumjam]

Since words appear on the screen only through an act of special dispensation from the Deity, how can you be sure?

Because in this thread, as at Fatima, we are, atheists, theists, materialists, pedants, cross-dressers, and rabbit-breeders.. all perceiving extremely similar phenomena, regardless of prior expectations.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Because in this thread, as at Fatima, we are, atheists, theists, materialists, pedants, cross-dressers, and rabbit-breeders.. all perceiving extremely similar phenomena, regardless of prior expectations.


Good, then you admit that the theists-in-skirts at Salem truly did see witches threatening them, since all shared experience must be true?

[plumjam]

Good, then you admit that the theists-in-skirts at Salem truly did see witches threatening them, since all shared experience must be true?

I see you switched from Fatima to Salem. Presumably cos you're a bit uncomfortable with Fatima due to it being backed up by a great deal more evidence.
I've no idea about Salem, has it been acknowledged by the Catholic church, or any church, as kind of the opposite of a miracle (or at least a confirmed diabolical manifestation)? Was it attested to by witnesses who were either disinterested, or previously hostile, as at Fatima?
From what I remember of the movie it was a case of teenage girls dabbling with the occult for a thrill, and then when they were found out they (understandably, I think) resorted to blaming each other, in order to try to avoid the death penalty. But don't quote me on that.

[rocketdodger]

Because in this thread, as at Fatima, we are, atheists, theists, materialists, pedants, cross-dressers, and rabbit-breeders.. all perceiving extremely similar phenomena, regardless of prior expectations.

I fail to see how

1)The sun rotating with various colors
2)various colored auras around the sun
3)the sun moving back and forth
4)the sun moving up and down
5)the sun moving randomly
6)images of saints
7)images of the virgin mary
8)images of jesus

can be considered "extremely similar phenomena."

And the participants of this thread are definitely not like any of those at Fatima who actually looked into the sun (who -- take note -- are the only ones who reported any of this nonsense). I dare say even you, plumjam, are smart enough to not look directly into the sun with unprotected eyes for any decent length of time even if some lady promised you a miracle.

[Foster Zygote]

I fail to see how

1)The sun rotating with various colors
2)various colored auras around the sun
3)the sun moving back and forth
4)the sun moving up and down
5)the sun moving randomly
6)images of saints
7)images of the virgin mary
8)images of jesus

can be considered "extremely similar phenomena."

And the participants of this thread are definitely not like any of those at Fatima who actually looked into the sun (who -- take note -- are the only ones who reported any of this nonsense). I dare say even you, plumjam, are smart enough to not look directly into the sun with unprotected eyes for any decent length of time even if some lady promised you a miracle.

Yes. Where are the reports of these strange phenomena from witnesses in one whole hemisphere of the world?

[rocketdodger]

It isn't. That's just a trick of the light.. an entirely natural phenomenon.. taking place between your monitor and your retina. That is reinforced, mentally, by your prior expectation (which we're now assuming, even though you expected something else) that this thread would veer off into the territory of shared delusional perceptions.

Of course the fact that we can reliably control this trick of light using well understood principles -- meaning text appearing on a monitor is very different from a "dancing sun at Fatima" that hasn't been repeated at all, let alone reliably -- is completely lost upon you.

[plumjam]

I fail to see how

1)The sun rotating with various colors
2)various colored auras around the sun
3)the sun moving back and forth
4)the sun moving up and down
5)the sun moving randomly
6)images of saints
7)images of the virgin mary
8)images of jesus

can be considered "extremely similar phenomena."
Dodger, with this you walk away triumphantly with the JREF October 2008 Pedant of the Month Award.

And the participants of this thread are definitely not like any of those at Fatima who actually looked into the sun (who -- take note -- are the only ones who reported any of this nonsense). I dare say even you, plumjam, are smart enough to not look directly into the sun with unprotected eyes for any decent length of time even if some lady promised you a miracle.
If you bother to read the reports you'll see that a common description is that during the phenomenon the sun was no longer painful to the eyes to look at directly, for extended periods of time. This is one of the things they found...you know.. unusual.
You know, most people, usually, are not complete idiots.

[Wally]

You know, most people, usually, are not complete idiots.

I'd need to see more evidence for this.

[Foster Zygote]

I see you switched from Fatima to Salem. Presumably cos you're a bit uncomfortable with Fatima due to it being backed up by a great deal more evidence.
I've no idea about Salem, has it been acknowledged by the Catholic church, or any church, as kind of the opposite of a miracle (or at least a confirmed diabolical manifestation)? Was it attested to by witnesses who were either disinterested, or previously hostile, as at Fatima?
From what I remember of the movie it was a case of teenage girls dabbling with the occult for a thrill, and then when they were found out they (understandably, I think) resorted to blaming each other, in order to try to avoid the death penalty. But don't quote me on that.

From Robert E. Bartholomew and Erich Goode:

Lille, France, 1639
Mackay (1852, 539-540) reports that in 1639 at an all-girls' school in Lille, France, fifty pupils were convinced by their overzealous teacher that they were under Satanic influence. Antoinette Bourgignon had the children believing that "little black angels" were flying about their heads, and that the Devil's imps were everywhere. Soon, each of the students confessed to witchcraft, flying on broomsticks and even eating baby flesh. The students came close to being burned at the stake but were spared when blame shifted to the headmistress, who escaped at the last minute. The episode occurred near the end of the Continental European witch mania of 1400 to 1650, when at least 200,000 people were executed following allegations of witchcraft.

Salem, Massachusetts, 1691-1693
In 1692, Salem Village (now Danvers, Massachusetts) was the scene of a moral panic that spread throughout the region and involved witchcraft accusations which led to trials, torture, imprisonment, and executions. Others died in jail or during torture. At least twenty residents lost their lives. Social paranoia was such that two dogs were even accused and executed! All convictions were based on ambiguous evidence. The witch mania began in December 1691, when eight girls living in the vicinity of Salem exhibited strange behaviors including disordered speech, convulsive movements, and bizarre conduct. Explanations for the "fits" range from outright fakery to hysteria to ergot poisoning of the food supply. By February 1692, the affected girls had accused two elderly women and a servant from Barbados named Tibula of being witches, and they were arrested. Soon hundreds of residents were accused of witchcraft, and trials were held. In May 1693, the episode ended when Governor Phips ordered that all suspects be released (Nevins 1916; Caporael 1976; Karlsen 1989).

You can't insist that the Fatima reports must be genuine without applying the same evaluative criteria to cases such as the above.

[kurious_kathy]

"Extraordinary" evidence is evidence that is statistically outside the bounds of natural chance AND natural events AND can only be best explained by the supposedly claim.
This is my criteria and it can be objective.I think all human life is extraordinary evidence and that God created all life! Evolutionists still can't answer the BIG question, Where did the added info come from to change something into something else? If you mix a dog with another dog you still get a dog. The same applies with apes, we did not evolve from them there is absolutely no way it could be possible!

And I mentioned this on another thread but everyone here needs to see "The Privleged Planet" it is absolutely evident this planet was created by our loving creator to provide everything we need to live. Everything comes from God!!

[paximperium]

I think all human life is extraordinary evidence and that God created all life!
Why?

Evolutionists still can't answer the BIG question,
Can you? What is your answer?


Where did the added info come from to change something into something else?
Mutation, gene duplication, chromosomal split, combination etc.


If you mix a dog with another dog you still get a dog.
Define dog. What is the criteria for "dog"?


The same applies with apes, we did not evolve from them there is absolutely no way it could be possible!
Why?


And I mentioned this on another thread but everyone here needs to see "The Privleged Planet" it is absolutely evident this planet was created by our loving creator to provide everything we need to live.
Why is God loving?
Why is there suffering and pain in this world?
Why does your "loving" God send people to hell for eternity?


Everything comes from God!!
Why?
What is God?
Where did God come from?

[Ichneumonwasp]

I see you switched from Fatima to Salem. Presumably cos you're a bit uncomfortable with Fatima due to it being backed up by a great deal more evidence.
I've no idea about Salem, has it been acknowledged by the Catholic church, or any church, as kind of the opposite of a miracle (or at least a confirmed diabolical manifestation)? Was it attested to by witnesses who were either disinterested, or previously hostile, as at Fatima?
From what I remember of the movie it was a case of teenage girls dabbling with the occult for a thrill, and then when they were found out they (understandably, I think) resorted to blaming each other, in order to try to avoid the death penalty. But don't quote me on that.


I see that you are not willing to follow the logic of your contention. Instead of evading the issue, would you care to comment on the history and not a Hollywood movie?

Uncomfortable with Fatima? We've been discussing it for days now. What discomfort could you possibly infer from a single one of my repsonses -- especially since you ignore most of the points.

The logic of your assertion is that group perception cannot be wrong. Therefore, the girls in Salem must have seen witches, and it must be the case that spectral evidence should be admitted into a court of law. It is very simple -- do you agree or disagree? If you agree, then, sure let's go back to the 17th century. If you disagree, then please explain why your special pleading for Fatima should garner anything more than a snicker.

As to the Catholic church supporting a Puritan event, why would you ever think to suggest such a thing? Whether a church does or does not support what happened in Salem is beside the point. You contend that group perceptions cannot be in error. It is your opinion and not any church's opinion that is under scrutiny here.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

If you bother to read the reports you'll see that a common description is that during the phenomenon the sun was no longer painful to the eyes to look at directly, for extended periods of time. This is one of the things they found...you know.. unusual.
You know, most people, usually, are not complete idiots.

There are, of course, naturally observed phenomenon that explain that. Steuart Campbell posulated that stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun making it appear multi-colored and spinning. He cited an example of such an event occuring in China during 1983 as evidence.

It could also be a sundog, which explains it rather well. The only real problem being that if it was a sundog it should have formed before the storm and not after it.

And of course, there are contradictory reports of what people saw.

On her last visit, a crowd of 70,000 people, including reporters from skeptical, anti-religious newspapers, gathered in a torrential rainstorm to witness the great Solar Miracle of Fatima. Many people in the crowd said that the sun changed colours, began spinning in the sky and went completely dark for several minutes before seeming to plunge toward the earth, then returning to its proper place. Reporter Avelino de Almeida, who had snarked at Fatima in previous articles, saw and reported the phenomena, while his photographer saw nothing but shot pictures of the mesmerized crowd looking up.

There is no independent verification of the solar phenomenon, and no movement or other phenomenon of the sun was registered by scientists at the time. It was reportedly witnessed from up to 25 miles away, but these people did not know what to make of it. Not everyone in the crowd saw the "sun dance", including the children, who reported seeing Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and Saint Joseph blessing the people. Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others saw nothing at all.

Source (http://www.sacred-destinations.com/portugal/fatima-shrine-of-our-lady-of-fatima.htm)


You're doing a spectacular job dodging every criticism I make by the way.

[articulett]

Dogs descended from wolves and are considered a subspecies of them... they still interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Coyotes too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1078803/Mans-oldest-friend-Scientists-discover-grandad-modern-dogs--31-700-years-ago.html

Kathy, just because you are too daft to understand something (argument from incredulity) doesn't mean a magic man did it.

[fromdownunder]

If you mix a dog with another dog you still get a dog.

Kathy - is this a "dog kind"?

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z191/fromdownunder_bucket/wildlife_tiger31.jpg

Norm

[Ichneumonwasp]

If you bother to read the reports you'll see that a common description is that during the phenomenon the sun was no longer painful to the eyes to look at directly, for extended periods of time. This is one of the things they found...you know.. unusual.
You know, most people, usually, are not complete idiots.


Have you bothered to read any of the actual reports? Or, are you suggesting now that the sky was clear when this happened?

I can only guess that you think no one else has or that you have only accessed religious sites that do not report the events very accurately.

There were clouds over the sun, so that people could look at it. Most of the reports are of color changes (as in moving clouds creating variations in the amount of water the sun's rays needed to penetrate). Some reported a halo effect. Some people reported that the sun seemed to drop out of the sky. Some said that it zig zagged. Others that it danced. Others did not see this -- which would be very strange if you want to contend that group perception cannot be wrong. Why so many different descriptions of the same event when group perception cannot be mistaken?

Let's recap if you or anyone else is lost in all the meanderings. The issue of delusion that I and others mentioned earlier does not concern the perception as a perception. It concerns the interpretation of the perception. Granted, the way our perceptual system works, there is no clear line between a bare perception and its interpretation -- we always work within a framework when we perceive anything and that framework 'colors' our perceptions. Perception is not a passive process; it is quite active, and it depends on higher cortical processing.

As I stated earlier, I don't think anyone questions that something happened or was seen in Fatima. What we question is the interpretation of what occurred -- that it was a miracle (perhaps I did not make that clear earlier). People in Phoenix swear up and down that aliens visited their town, but the Phoenix lights have been repeatedly explained by natural means. The same is the case with Fatima. We do not trust the interpretation of visual phenomena even by groups of people if that interpretation produces a more complex situation that can more easily be explained by the 'rules of the game' in the absence of other strong corroborating evidence (that is the reason why I referred to this 'miracle' in the first place). Your contention must be that the 'rules of the game' cannot explain what happened in Fatima, that there cannot, even in theory, be an explanation that does not include the supernatural if you wish to use this as an example to counter monism. I would like to know why you would contend that. Otherwise, this is an exercise in futility.

As I stated earlier, I don't care if you accept the explanation as THE explanation. If you want to hold onto this as an example of the supernatural, be my guest; it changes nothing in anyone else's universe. But for you to contend that it is not possible for natural atmospheric conditions to explain what people saw (though they covered this perception in religious hues because of their expectations) seems quite irrational.

[Ichneumonwasp]

it is absolutely evident this planet was created by our loving creator to provide everything we need to live. Everything comes from God!!

Really? Even Ichneumon wasps? Is God really that maniacally evil?

Are you prepared now to show your humility and integrity and rescind your earlier charge against a United States senator -- that his involvement with Acorn is criminal?

[Silentknight]

*snickers*

Here's another one that "proves a miracle" even though it's already been explained. It's raining blood! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala) And possibly other bodily fluids. (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/07/29/stories/0229000p.htm) Maybe God has a bladder control problem.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Eeewwww. Tears from Heaven is one thing. But God's piss???????

[wolfgirl]

The same applies with apes, we did not evolve from them there is absolutely no way it could be possible!Your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory and natural selection in no way negates its veracity. (Or let me put that in kathy-talk: Just cuz you don't git it, don't mean it ain't true.)

it is absolutely evident this planet was created by our loving creator to provide everything we need to live.Including parasites and viruses and bacteria? Including hideous deforming diseases and painful wasting sicknesses? (He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.) What a wonderful loving creator you have there.

Or could it be that the world seems to conform to our needs because we evolved on it, so we evolved to use and need what is here?

[wolfgirl]

it is absolutely evident this planet was created by our loving creator to provide everything we need to live. Everything comes from God!!I'll let the great naturalist David Attenborough speak to this: "My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy.'"

[Mashuna]

Even with Fatima, no one is arguing that nothing happened, only that what did happen could easily be misinterpreted.


I'm never quite sure what the differences are between the people claiming a miracle and people claiming a mass delusion in this case.

I mean, the people who say this was a delusion, or hallucination, say that the sun did not actually careen towards the earth in a zig-zag pattern, it was just an effect caused by atmospheric conditions, or staring at the sun too long with a pre-suggestion that something strange was going to happen.

Others claim that this was a miracle, and that events occurred as reported. But what, actually, is the claim here? Is the claim that God actually moved the sun in the sky, and the miracle is threefold - moving the sun, hiding this fact from everyone who wasn't in Fatima and ensuring that there were no physical effects on the rest of the solar system. Or is the claim that God just made it seem as though the sun moved? That although this was just a delusion, it wasn't caused by atmospheric effects, it was caused by God?

On a side note, I see share a birthday with Plumjam :D. Happy Birthday PJ!

[PBTree]

I think all human life is extraordinary evidence and that God created all life!

So let me get this right. God created all of those unwanted children that are aborted every year, even though he knew (he is omniscient as we all know) that this was their fate.

What a guy.

:nope:

[shuttlt]

I think all human life is extraordinary evidence and that God created all life! Evolutionists still can't answer the BIG question, Where did the added info come from to change something into something else? If you mix a dog with another dog you still get a dog. The same applies with apes, we did not evolve from them there is absolutely no way it could be possible!

And I mentioned this on another thread but everyone here needs to see "The Privleged Planet" it is absolutely evident this planet was created by our loving creator to provide everything we need to live. Everything comes from God!!

Kurious Kathy,

You are on a skeptic forum! You can't go basing your argument on claims like "we did not evolve from [apes] there is absolutely no way it could be possible!" without a little more explanation. Consider your audience! The overwhelming majority of the rest of us on this forum DO believe that we evolved from apes and DON'T believe the Earth was created with our comfort in mind. What is the sense in coming out with these statements that you know we are going to disagree with? I appreciate and envy your faith, but please take into account that I don't share it to the smallest degree.

[MarkCorrigan]

I'll let the great naturalist David Attenborough speak to this: "My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy.'"
Blatent and terrible derail (sorry) but I've met him, and he is absolutely awesome. One of the nicest people I've ever met in my life. I asked him a question as part of an "interview" when I was 10 or 11, and I, being a huge geek and avid nature doc watcher thought it was really amazing to have met him.

End Derail:p

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm never quite sure what the differences are between the people claiming a miracle and people claiming a mass delusion in this case.

I mean, the people who say this was a delusion, or hallucination, say that the sun did not actually careen towards the earth in a zig-zag pattern, it was just an effect caused by atmospheric conditions, or staring at the sun too long with a pre-suggestion that something strange was going to happen.

Others claim that this was a miracle, and that events occurred as reported. But what, actually, is the claim here? Is the claim that God actually moved the sun in the sky, and the miracle is threefold - moving the sun, hiding this fact from everyone who wasn't in Fatima and ensuring that there were no physical effects on the rest of the solar system. Or is the claim that God just made it seem as though the sun moved? That although this was just a delusion, it wasn't caused by atmospheric effects, it was caused by God?

On a side note, I see share a birthday with Plumjam :D. Happy Birthday PJ!



Maybe that is my problem too. I'm still having some difficulty understanding exactly what PJ is saying except for the snarky attempts to insinuate that monism is wrong.

We know that the sun did not literally jump around in the sky in an objective sense because no one else in the world saw it except people in the general vicinity (where the same, or very similar, atmospheric conditions prevailed; side note -- it was also the case that since others in the vicinity saw this that it was "meant" only for those who showed up to witness the 'miracle', so no one can claim exclusivity based on demonstrated faith). If this literally occurred, then the earth no longer exists.

So, we are stuck with the issue of illusion or hallucination. I played a bit loose with the terms earlier, and an interesting thing occurred as a result of it. Both PJ and Egg were foursquare opposed to the idea that it was hallucination. But mass hallucination -- seeing something that does not fit the real world at all -- is actually the best explanation for a miracle in this situation. They could certainly argue that God planted the vision of the sun jumping in the sky into the minds of 70,000 people for his own glory -- that could certainly be seen as a miracle.

As to illusion -- something really happened, but it was misinterpreted -- we've all encountered that (just stick a pencil in water). Visual illusion (false interpretation of actual sensory information) accompanied by the delusion (false belief) that this represents the glory of God is, of course, our interpretation of what occurred.

What no one can argue is that the people saw literally what occurred to the sun for all observers because (1) not everyone at Fatima saw the same thing (some of the reports are quite divergent), and (2) the result of the sun jumping in the sky and falling from the sky would necessarily mean that the sun or the earth moved against the laws of physics, yet no one else in the world experienced this change in the laws of physics.

So, yeah, I'm with you. PJ and Egg, what exactly is your claim? What exactly is it that you are suggesting that God did? Are you arguing miracle upon miracle? Mass hallucination created by God? Mass illusion but the illusion was created by God? What?

[arthwollipot]

Blatent and terrible derail (sorry) but I've met him, and he is absolutely awesome. One of the nicest people I've ever met in my life. I asked him a question as part of an "interview" when I was 10 or 11, and I, being a huge geek and avid nature doc watcher thought it was really amazing to have met him.You lucky, lucky bastard. I only met his cinematographer!

[rocketdodger]

Dodger, with this you walk away triumphantly with the JREF October 2008 Pedant of the Month Award.

That is flattering, considering

1) Nearly everyone who knows anything on this forum has attacked your posts at one time or another due to their utter lack of anything resembling a formal or logical argument.

2) Your only response to such attacks -- in your entire history on this forum -- has been to accuse them, more or less, of arising from pedantry or other personal flaws of the poster.

If you bother to read the reports you'll see that a common description is that during the phenomenon the sun was no longer painful to the eyes to look at directly, for extended periods of time. This is one of the things they found...you know.. unusual.
You know, most people, usually, are not complete idiots.

Are you claiming that looking directly into the sun is harmless as long as it isn't painful?

[Egg]

PJ and Egg, what exactly is your claim? What exactly is it that you are suggesting that God did? Are you arguing miracle upon miracle? Mass hallucination created by God? Mass illusion but the illusion was created by God? What?

I didn't actually claim anything about Fatima. I just said that I wasn't convinced by the mass hallucination idea and would need some evidence that such things could even happen before it sounded like a reasonable option. Some sort of atmospheric illusion sounds more plausible to me out the listed options, but of course, listing the options at all could just be creating a fallacy of false choice.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I didn't actually claim anything about Fatima. I just said that I wasn't convinced by the mass hallucination idea and would need some evidence that such things could even happen before it sounded like a reasonable option. Some sort of atmospheric illusion sounds more plausible to me out the listed options, but of course, listing the options at all could just be creating a fallacy of false choice.


Very true, but I think the lists cover most possibilities. Since none of us were there we can't comment beyond speculation anyway.

[shuttlt]

I didn't actually claim anything about Fatima. I just said that I wasn't convinced by the mass hallucination idea and would need some evidence that such things could even happen before it sounded like a reasonable option. Some sort of atmospheric illusion sounds more plausible to me out the listed options, but of course, listing the options at all could just be creating a fallacy of false choice.

Whatever really happened, we are talking about a freakishly rare event. It's very hard to weigh up the relative likelyhood of extremely unlikely causes of extremely rare events.

More importantly, a while ago a study made the press in the UK claiming that 40% of people in the study group claimed to have seen footage of the bomb exploding on the bus in London in July 2005 even though no such footage exists:
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/Trauma-can-create-false-memories.4474405.jp
It's amazing how much our minds can make up when we're not looking. I don't see that the number of people who afterwards claimed to have seen something is necessarily indicative of the number who really had some kind of visual experience at the time.

Anyway, it doesn't have to be an either/or thing... a bit of mass hysteria, a bit of weird weather... A few people think they've seen something and afterwards other peoples memories fill in where they think there's a blank. Sure it's unlikely, but is it once a century unlikely?

[articulett]

If "mass hallucination" wouldn't convince a person, then how in the world does "invisible entities sending cryptic messages to mankind" convince people???

I guess it's all in what people WANT to believe, eh?

[Frinkiak7]

I'll let the great naturalist David Attenborough speak to this: "My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy.'"

I would assume that the answer to that question, from a fundamentalist's point of view, would be, "God didn't create that worm! Satan did!"

Because, you see, Satan has the power to fill in the gaps. No tyrannical organization can exist without an enemy to demonize.

[CFLarsen]

Mass hallucinations do not merely convince people who want to believe. Anyone can be subject to mass hallucinations which can be immensely convincing.

Likewise, anyone can experience what can easily be interpreted as messages from deities.

Believers are far from always poor, weak sods who deserve nothing but condescending pity.

[PBTree]

I would assume that the answer to that question, from a fundamentalist's point of view, would be, "God didn't create that worm! Satan did!"

Because, you see, Satan has the power to fill in the gaps. No tyrannical organization can exist without an enemy to demonize.


god created satan,
satan created the worm

ergo.........

;)

[PBTree]

I didn't actually claim anything about Fatima. I just said that I wasn't convinced by the mass hallucination idea and would need some evidence that such things could even happen before it sounded like a reasonable option. Some sort of atmospheric illusion sounds more plausible to me out the listed options, but of course, listing the options at all could just be creating a fallacy of false choice.



Statler: Boo!
Waldorf: Boooo!
S: That was the worst thing I’ve ever heard! (I can’t see a damn thing)
W: It was terrible! (Either can I)
S: Horrendous! (It’s all a big hoax, boooo)
W: Well it wasn’t that bad. (Well maybe not a complete hoax)
S: Oh, yeah? (Yeah)
W: Well, there were parts of it I liked! (I think I saw the sun wiggle a little bit)
S: Well, I liked alot of it. (I think I saw it wiggle a little bit too)
W: Yeah, it was GOOD actually. (Yeah, It did wiggle a bit)
S: It was great! (god is great, he made the sun wiggle)
W: It was wonderful! (god is wonderful, I’m a believer)
S: Yes, bravo! (Yes, halleleujah)
W: More! halleleujah)
S: More! halleleujah)
W: More! halleleujah)
S: More! halleleujah)

70,000 Statler and Waldorfs.

:)

[Foster Zygote]

We're well into eight pages on this thread with no detailed response to the OP. We've had a very lengthy post stating just how detailed that response would be, but still no objective justification for choosing Christianity over any other religion.

[H'ethetheth]

Christian Dude hasn't been on the forum for five days and his avatar is missing too. Maybe he has finally realized the irrationality of his position and is slowly deconverting.

...probably not though.

[Paulhoff]

Kathy - is this a "dog kind"?

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z191/fromdownunder_bucket/wildlife_tiger31.jpg

Norm
I for one know it is not.

Paul

:) :) :)

[PBTree]

Christian Dude hasn't been on the forum for five days and his avatar is missing too. Maybe he has finally realized the irrationality of his position and is slowly deconverting.

...probably not though.


He could be in pain? :yikes:

That truth thing can be damned painful. :deadhorse:

[Robert Oz]

Many Muslims have converted to Christianity after meeting the risen Christ and I believe their testimony. I have faith and believe what they say is true and the fruit is their lives changed. Yes some even died at the hand of their families for coverting to Christianity, but they will be in heaven and their murderers will more than likely not be unless Jesus decides to save and forgive them too, which we just never know.

Most unbelievers just choose to discount a believers testimony of Christ which is just sorry to say,"Cold Blooded!" We aren't lieing when we tell you our redeemer lives, WE KNOW! AND THAT'S THE IRONY OF IT ALL, UNLEsS YOU ARE WILLING TO BELIEVE AND HUMBLE YOURSELF LIKE WE HAVE BEFORE A HOLY GOD YOU CAN'T EVER KNOW HOW TRULY WONDERFUL AND LOVING OUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS.


Wikipedia list of some famous converts from Christianity to Islam:

[edit] From Catholicism
Keith Ellison American, raised Catholic, Representative from Minnesota's 5th congressional district, first Muslim to be elected to the United States Congress[citation needed]Akhenaton - French rapper and producer of French hip hop.[1]
Torquato Cardilli - Italian ambassador.[2]
Keith Ellison - American, Representative from Minnesota's 5th congressional district, first Muslim to be elected to the United States Congress[3]
Radu cel Frumos - was the younger brother of Vlad Ţepeş (Dracula) and prince of the principality of Wallachia.[4]
Roger Garaudy - French philosopher.[5]
René Guénon - French Author in the field of metaphysics [6][7]
Murad Wilfred Hofmann - NATO official[8]
Abdul Raheem Green - Formerly Anthony Green, Converted from Catholicism to Islam, and is now an Islamic lecturer.[9]
Knud Holmboe - Danish journalist and explorer.[10]
Sarah Joseph - commentator on women's issues and founder of emel magazine.[11]
Nuh Ha Mim Keller - from Catholicism to agnosticism to Sufism, Islamic scholar.[12]
John Walker Lindh - the "American Taliban" [13][14]
Vincenzo Luvineri - American rapper and the lyricist behind the Philadelphia underground hip-hop group Jedi Mind Tricks.[15]
Ingrid Mattson - Canadian scholar and current president of the Islamic Society of North America (2006)[16]
Matthew Saad Muhammad (formerly Matthew Franklin) - former boxer.[17]
Peter Murphy - vocalist of the rock group Bauhaus.[18]
Poncke Princen - Dutch soldier, later human rights activist.[19]
Ahmed Santos - Filipino, fugitive, founder of the Rajah Solaiman Movement & suspected by Filipino authorities to be an Al Qaeda operative[20][21][22]
Danny Thompson - English double bass player.[23]
Mohammad Yousuf - Pakistani cricketer. Known for holding the world record for the most Test runs in a single calendar year.[24]
Everlast American musician, raised Catholic. [13]
Yusuf Estes, a convert to Islam, is the National Muslim Chaplain for Muslim Americans.[25]
[edit] From Protestantism
Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay), from Baptist[26][27] to The Nation of Islam to Sunni Islam.[28] famous boxer
Ryan G. Anderson - former Lutheran, convicted of charges of espionage for Al Qaeda[29][30]
André Carson - former Baptist,[31] second Muslim to serve the United States Congress.[32]
Isabelle Eberhardt - from Lutheran Christianity, 19th century explorer & writer[33]
Yahiya Emerick - American Muslim scholar, president of the Islamic Foundation of North America.[34]
Yusuf Estes - former preacher and federal prison chaplain.[25]
Silma Ihram - formerly a born again Baptist who is an Australian pioneer of Muslim education in the West, founder and former school Principal of the 'Noor Al Houda Islamic College', campaigner for racial tolerance, and Author.[35]
Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood - British author.[36]
Preacher Moss - Former Baptist,[37] American comedian and comedy writer.[38]
Ibrahim Muteferrika (original name not known) - From Unitarian Christianity, an early example of a Muslim publisher and printer.[39]
St. John Philby - Arabist, explorer, writer, and British colonial office intelligence operative; converted from Anglicanism.[40]
Yvonne Ridley - British journalist, from Anglicanism. She converted after being kidnapped and released by the Taliban.[41][42]
Siraj Wahaj - Former Baptist.[43] African-American Imam, noted for his efforts to eliminate Brooklyn's drug problems.[44]
Alexander Russell Webb - Former Presbyterian.[45] American journalist, newspaper owner, and former Consul-General of the U.S.A. in the Philippines.[46][47]
James Yee - previously Lutheran[48] and former U.S. Army Muslim chaplain.[49]
[edit] From unspecified or other Christian denomination
Claude Alexandre de Bonneval as Humbaracı Ahmet Paşa
Jimmy Cliff, Jamaican reggae musician
Muhammad Ali- a convert to Islam.
Malcolm X- famous Muslim convert and civil rights leader
Mohammed Zakariya
Timothy Winter at Al-Hidayah (26 August 2007)Salman the Persian A convert from Christianity[50] who was previously Zoroastrian. In search for truth, he traveled to Syria to follow Christianity. Upon the death of his teachers, he was directed to head to Arabia, where he was told the final prophet will rise. He later converted to Islam and became one of Muhammad's first companions.
Thomas J. Abercrombie - photographer[51]
Éric Abidal (changed his name to Bilal) - French football player , converted to Islam after marriage.[52]
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Lew Alcindor) - retired basketball player & the NBA's all-time leading scorer[53]
Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf (Chris Jackson) - retired basketball player[54]
Tariq Abdul-Wahad (Olivier Saint-Jean) - originally from France, former basketball player for the Mavericks and Kings[55]
Robin Padilla - Filipino actor.[56]
Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar (Sharmon Shah) - former NFL football player[57]
Ivan Aguéli (Johan Agelii) - famous Swedish painter.[58][59]
Dawud Wharnsby Ali (David Wharnsby) - Canadian singer/poet.[60][61]
Rowland Allanson-Winn, 5th Baron Headley - British soldier and peer.[62]
Nicolas Anelka - French football player[63]
Yasin Abu Bakr (Lennox Philip) - of Trinidad and Tobago, under trial for an attempted coup as of March 9, 2006[64]
Muhammad Abd-al-Rahman Barker (Philip Barker) - professor of Urdu, former chair of the University of Minnesota's Department of South Asian studies and creator of the Tékumel fantasy world.[65]
Kevin Barrett - university lecturer and member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.[66]
David Belfield - American, fled to Iran after assassinating Ali Akbar Tabatabai, an Iranian dissident.[67]
Mohammed Knut Bernström - Swedish ambassador to Venezuela (1963–1969), Spain (1973–1976) and Morocco (1976–1983)[68]
Jean de Béthencourt - French explorer who led an expedition to the Canary Islands.[69]
Art Blakey - American Jazz musician[70]
Omar Bongo - Gabonese, President of Gabon.[71]
Claude Alexandre de Bonneval - 18th century French nobleman.[72]
Tawana Brawley (changed her name to Maryam Muhammad) - African American woman noted for claiming to have been raped by several white men, a claim determined to be a fabrication by a grand jury. Later in life she converted to Islam.[73][74]
Willie Brigitte - French convert to Islam who associated with al-Qaeda in Pakistan and was possibly involved in a plot to conduct a terrorist operation in Australia.[75]
Dolores "LaLa" Brooks - American musician.[76]
Count Cassius- Visigothic aristocrat who founded the Banu Qasi dynasty of Muladi rulers.[77]
David Chappelle - comedian and television star[78]
Benjamin Chavis - controversial former head of the NAACP; joined the Nation of Islam[79]
Hedley Churchward - English painter[80]
Jimmy Cliff - Jamaican reggae musician.[81][82]
Aukai Collins - fought in Chechnya, paid FBI informant, author of an autobiographical book[83]
Jerôme Courtailler - one of two French brothers convicted by French authorities in 2004 for abetting terrorists[84][85][86]
Ian Dallas - Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi - Sufi shaykh of Scottish origins.[87]
C. Jack Ellis - Mayor of Macon, Georgia[88]
Chris Eubank British boxerChris Eubank - British boxer[89]
Sultaana Freeman - sued the state of Florida for niqab restrictions.[90]
Adam Yahiye Gadahn - spokesperson for Al-Qaeda; on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list[91][92]
George XI of Kartli - Saffavid commander.[93]
Ryan Harris- football player for the Denver Broncos [94]
David Hicks- Former Taliban fighter from Australia, recently released from detention in Adelaide. However, he later left Islam while incarcerated.
Bernard Hopkins - American boxer[95]
Jermaine Jackson (Muhammad Abdul Aziz) - former member of The Jackson 5 and brother of popstars Michael and Janet Jackson.[96]
Michael Muhammad Knight - American novelist, writer, and journalist.[97]
Rustie Lee - British television chef and celebrity.[98]
Germaine Lindsay - participated and died in the 7 July 2005 London bombings[84][99][100]
Alexander Litvinenko - former Russian spy converted to Islam on his deathbed.[101] [102]
Lee Boyd Malvo - convicted of capital murder and arrested for the Beltway sniper attacks, for being involved in 16 murders and 7 additional attempted murders.[103]
Iyasu V - Ethiopian emperor.[104]
Jacques-Francois Menou - French general under Napoleon I of France.[105]
Bruno Metsu - French coach of the Senegal team at the 2002 FIFA World Cup[106]
Daniel Moore - poet [107]
Sheila Musaji - founder of The American Muslim magazine.[108]
John Nelson - first recorded Englishman to become a Muslim.[109]
Prince Buster, Jamaican singer and producer.
Queen Noor of Jordan (formerly Lisa Najeeb Halaby)[110]
Omar Pasha - Ottoman general. Converted from Serbian Orthodoxy.[111]
Emin Pasha - physician, naturalist, and Egyptian governor.[112]
Judar Pasha - conqueror of the Songhai Empire.[113]
Bilal Philips - Islamic scholar and author[114]
Marmaduke Pickthall - famous translator of the Quran.[115]
William Abdullah Quilliam - 19th century British poet, ambassador and journalist.[116]
Ilie II Rareş - prince of Moldavia.[117]
Ahmad Rashād - Emmy award-winning sportscaster (mostly with NBC Sports) and former American football wide receiver.[118][119]
Richard Colvin Reid - shoe bomber (convicted terrorist) [120]
Franck Ribéry- a French football player. His name after he converted to Islam is Bilal.[121]
Busta Rhymes - Music artist, born to Rastafari parents
Sana al-Sayegh, dean of the Science and Technology Faculty at Palestine International University, converted to Islam in August 2007. Fatah has accused its political rival Hamas of forcing the professor to convert from Christianity, a charge Hamas denies. [122]
Brad Terrence Jordan ("Scarface") - American rapper[123]
Mario Scialoja - Italian ambassador and President of the World Muslim League.[124]
Betty Shabazz - wife of Malcolm X; former Methodist.[125]
Zaid Shakir - African-American Muslim speaker and intellectual in the United States.[126][127]
Rudolf Carl von Slatin - Anglo-Austrian soldier and administrator in the Sudan.[128]
Suleiman Pasha - French-born Egyptian commander.[129]
Abu Tammam - 9th century Arab poet born to Christian parents.[130]
Tekuder - Mongol leader of the Ilkhan empire who was formerly a Nestorian Christian.[131]
Joe Tex - soul singer and recording artist.[132]
Joseph Thomas - Australian convert, acquitted of terrorism charges, placed under a control order under the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005, currently pending retrial.[133][134]
Richard Thompson - British musician, best known for his guitar playing and songwriting.[135]
Ahmad Thomson - British barrister and writer and also a member of the Murabitun movement.[136]
Top Topham - rock guitarist from England.[137]
Gabriele Torsello - Italian freelance photojournalist based in London who was abducted in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.[138]
Philippe Troussier - French, former football player & trainer of a Japanese football team[139]
Mihnea Turcitul - was a Prince (Voivode) of Walachia. Converted from Eastern Orthodox Christianity.[140]
Abu Usamah - controversial American-born Imam of Green Lane Masjid in Birmingham, UK. Accused of preaching messages of hate towards non-Muslims in a UK Television documentary.[141]
Jacques Vergès - French lawyer and famous anti-colonialism known for defending left- and right-wing international terrorists and dictators in court
Danny Williams - British boxer[142]
Malcolm X - American, from Christianity to Nation of Islam to mainstream Islam, African-American civil rights leader.[143]
Khalid Yasin - Executive Director of the Islamic Teaching Institute, and a Shaykh currently residing in Australia.[144]
Hamza Yusuf - American convert from Greek Orthodox; head of the Zaytuna Institute.[145]
Suhaib Webb - American Islamic activist and speaker.[146]
John Whitehead - an American singer, songwriter, and record producer.[147]
Timothy Winter - prominent British Islamic thinker and scholar, and a lecturer in Islamic studies in the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge.[148]
Zağanos Pasha - one of the prominent military commanders of Mehmet II (Mehmet the Conqueror) and a lala, at once an advisor, mentor, tutor, councilors, protector, for the sultan.[149]
Mohammed Zakariya - an American master of Arabic calligraphy, best known for his work on the popular Eid U.S. postage stamp.[150]


Most unbelievers just choose to discount a believers testimony of Allah which is just sorry to say,"Cold Blooded!" Muslims aren't lieing when they tell you Allah is the one true God, THEY KNOW!


No I am a witness to the truth also and the Bible has stood the test of time. The other so called holy books are not God inspired and you can see that by the fruit they have bore.


So, Christians have never committed attrocities? And this is how you know Christianity is the one true religion? :jaw-dropp Absurd.

[Christian Dude]

Hi guys,

I was sick and then out of town. I am not abandoning you. I still love you and have hope for you. ;)

CD

[articulett]

We have hope that your brain might learn to reason too.

But I think your wife is as far gone as the Jonestown Cult was...

And as sure of herself in her beliefs as Tom Cruise is in his... and the hijackers were in theirs.

Scary.

[Moochie]

Hi guys,

I was sick and then out of town. I am not abandoning you. I still love you and have hope for you. ;)

CD

Since I don't know you, and going by your discourse here never will, I can't say I return the sentiment. Instead, my hope is that someday you will overcome your evident fear of the world at large, its many and varied people, and their many, many ideas and understandings about religion, including Christianity, so that you may begin to understand that what is being preached in your church is a gross distortion of mainstream Christianity, orchestrated by people who most assuredly do not have your best interests, nor that of your great nation, at heart.


M.

[Ladewig]

Hi guys,

I was sick and then out of town. I am not abandoning you. I still love you and have hope for you. ;)

CD

We are less interested in love and hope and more interested in answers. Can you provide some?

[PBTree]

Hi guys,

I was sick and then out of town. I am not abandoning you. I still love you and have hope for you. ;)

CD

Can we assume that you were sick from some sort of virus? The little wriggly things that kill millions every year and were created by a 'certain figure'.

Now what were they created for, I forget......

;)

[Paulhoff]

G5JtxrR6msg&NR

Paul

:) :) :)

[H'ethetheth]

A bump before it disappears over the edge of oblivion.

[joobz]

I had stated that I wait to hear CD's reasons. I must admit that the lack of any real argument from Christiandude is rather telling.

[arthwollipot]

Can I stop holding my breath now? This shade of purple is not flattering.

[H'ethetheth]

Can I stop holding my breath now? This shade of purple is not flattering. I think that after about two weeks since the last on-topic post from a believer, it would be wise to start breathing again.

[Adavidson]

I think it`s interesting that hardly any christians can tell you how christianity expanded after the death of christ.
Very few actually know how the church got its power, and how many had to die so old men in big dresses could drink wine and count their money? (pope)

Lets consider there was a Jesus, he was religious, and lets go so far to say he was the son of som God. Can christian people honestly claim that Jesus`s wanted things to turn out the way they are today?

With male prests, a male pope and rasism against coloured people and women?

There are just to many questions for that religion to be taken serioulsy.

[Christian Dude]

Below is the right post

[Christian Dude]

Hi guys, sorry it took so long to get back here. Life kind of took over and I was not able to visit with you guys. I have been thinking about it. I asked my self what would be the biggest difference between Christianity and all other religions. And I also thought about what in Christianity might prove it to be true. SK brought up the point similar to this: if someone were to prove a certain religion true, that person would not have to argue against anything else since he proved one religion to be the truth. So, for this post, I have an argument along both those lines. What could be considered one of the biggest differences and also what might prove it true. I came up with prophecy.

No other religion has near the amount of prophecy that Christianity has, and that prophecy, if accurate and correct could possibly prove Christianity to be the truth. So, if there is a creator God, and he wanted us to know he existed, and he wanted to communicate truth to us, how could he do it in a way that could not be counterfeited or corrupted? Prophecy. No other being in existence is capable of knowing the beginning and the end all at once. I know there are theories that time travel is possible, and concepts of interdimensional beings and aliens that might be able to travel through time. If you want to believe in those things and dismiss the idea that only a creator God would be able to know the future, ok, but if you want to remain open to the idea that a creator God left for us a communication, a record of the future, read on.

For my first example I want to use Nineveh. The prophet Nahum prophesied against Nineveh and foretold its downfall. We can argue all day long about when the book was written, but, are there any prophecies in the book that were not immediate prophecies that would take a lot longer to see if they were properly fulfilled? I think there are a few. In Nahum 1:8-9 it says, “But with an overflowing flood He will make an utter end of its place, And darkness will pursue His enemies. What do you conspire against the LORD? He will make an utter end of it. Affliction will not rise up a second time.” Not only does it say how Nineveh’s downfall will come about, with and overflowing flood, it also says it will be Nineveh’s utter end. Nahum said Nineveh would never recover, never be rebuilt, and never again be a problem for Israel. No Amon, or Thebes, which is mentioned in Nahum, was rebuilt after it was destroyed. How many times has Jerusalem been rebuilt? Nahum said Nineveh would never again be on the world scene. He was right.

Micah, who lived about 750 BC, prophesied about something that could be pretty interesting to us. You can’t argue that the book was written after the events he foretold because we know for sure this book was written earlier. We know when the Septuagint was written and the book of Micah was in it. In Micah 3:12 it says. “Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, And the mountain of the temple Like the bare hills of the forest.” This began to be fulfilled in 70 AD and was completely fulfilled around 135 AD when Hadrian had Jerusalem plowed.

Ezekiel prophesied a great deal about Tyre. Again we know that Ezekiel was before the Septuagint. So what are his long term prophecies against Tyre that were fulfilled after the Septuagint was written? First let me give you one that was fulfilled right before the Septuagint was written. If you want to believe Ezekiel was written after 333 BC you are being more than stubborn in my opinion. Right around 333 BC Alexander attacked Tyre and took all the timber, rubble, dirt and what ever he could find, and threw it into the sea to build a bridge out to the island city of Tyre to get at it. All the stuff he threw into the sea was the leftovers from the first city of Tyre that Nebuchadnezzar left behind when he destroyed the original city on the main land. In Ezekiel 26:12 it says, “And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.” Ezekiel also said the city would be attacked by many nations and ultimately wiped out as a people. Tyre was attacked and defeated 3 times and there is no Phoenician Empire any more. Here are the verses that apply, 26:3, “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.” 26:21 “I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.”

Now look at this one Ezekiel prophesied against Egypt. For just about all of human history Egypt had been a dominant world power, some times thee dominant world power. An ancient person would have no reason to believe that Egypt would ever stop being a dominant world power, but in Ezekiel 29:15 it says about Egypt, “It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations.” Why does Ezekiel not say it will be never found again like he does about the Phoenician Empire? How could he have known the Phoenician Empire would be over and gone, and the Egyptian Empire would remain, but no longer a world power? You guys already know what I think.

I could stay only talking about prophecy that deals with cities and empires and go on for pages and pages. I also stayed away from examples, the best I could, that were fulfilled before the Septuagint was written. I did that because we know for sure the Septuagint was written around 282 BC, and I wanted to show examples that can not be said they were written after the fact. I do have this thought for you about prophecy fulfilled before the Septuagint. How likely do you think it is that the 39 books of the Old Testament were written all at the same time by the same person? Not likely at all is it. We have all this prophecy with detailed descriptions of what will happen to people, cities and nations. It is pretty unlikely they were all written by the same guy at the same time. Do you think that there is this giant conspiracy by a bunch of ancient Jews, all living at different times, to create phony prophecies about events that they watched happen?

Then we have all the prophecy dealing with the Messiah. Lots of people like to claim the New Testament writers fit Jesus into all the prophecy about the Messiah found in the Old Testament. The problem with that is the majority of unbelieving people at the time of Jesus did not refute Jesus’ claims to be the Messiah on any of those grounds because they knew he fit the prophecies. The reason Jesus was accepted as Messiah by thousands upon thousands of people, and belief in Him spread like wildfire through the first century world, is because there were a bazillion actual witnesses that knew these things to be fact. Jesus was rejected for two main reasons. He was rejected by many Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes because He would remove their political power because He was the King. They would be subject to His rule and authority, and lose their ability to rule and do whatever they wanted. But the fact is quite a few Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes received Him as the Messiah and were some of the original Christians. Many of the general public rejected Him because He did not defeat the Romans and take over the world as King of Kings at that time. They wanted Him to rule. They rejected a Messiah that was not there to rule the world and make their lives better. Both groups rejected Him for selfish reasons. The people in power because they wanted to retain their power and the perks that came with it. The other group because they wanted Santa Claus so to speak, a Messiah that would make their lives better in material ways.

There are over 300 very specific prophecies in the Old Testament that deal with the Messiah. I did not go into them here because I do not want to go round and round about how Jesus was made to fit the prophecies. That you have to grapple with for your self. This post is not that detailed with tons of specific examples, but I do present prophecy, and the vast amount found in both the Old Testament and New Testament, as a major difference in Christianity compared to all other major religions (other than Judaism). Again I propose to you that the Almighty Creator God uses prophecy as a way to verify that a communication to us from Him is real and not counterfeit. There are tons of materials out in the world that present many sides to the argument on the validity of biblical prophecy. If you were to want to do any personal research I suggest a few things. No matter what material you find and evaluate negative and against biblical prophecy, regarding materials that are positive and defend biblical prophecy, I suggest you research the manuscript evidence, archeological evidence and even anthropological evidence for the accurate dating of each book of the bible as one important aspect of this subject.

Believe it or not, I am not trying to convince you of the truth that Jesus is Messiah (the savior), and that Heaven and Hell are real places each person will ultimately end up in for eternity. Fortunately for me it is not my job to convince you that what I am telling you is the truth. All I am required to do by God, as instructed by Him in scripture, is to tell you the truth. It is His personal job to reveal to you that what I tell you is the true truth. His instructions also limit what I can do. It would be in rebellion against Him to try and force anyone to accept Christianity for their religion by coercion, violent means, bribery, trickery or any other means. The unfortunate facts are that many people in past history, like many crusaders and the perpetrators of the inquisition for example, have violently tried to force Christianity on people. Today others that call them selves Christians do the same, and many other horrible things, to try and force people to become so called “Christians”. History, and also today, is full of charlatans and megalomaniacs that prey on people using Christianity as their weapon. Don’t base your concepts and beliefs about Jesus on these people, they have nothing to do with him. All a true Christian can do is talk to you about Jesus and His word (the bible). If they do more than that and try to force you to believe what they tell you, they don’t get the teachings of God found in scripture. A Christian that gets it is loving and kind and a servant to all. Dismiss the hateful people you find that call them selves Christians, they don’t get it or are not the real thing. But don’t confuse hating sin and hating people as the same thing. I hate sin. Sin is destructive in people’s lives and tears apart bodies, emotions and souls. I hate sin, I hate my own sin, but I love sinners because Jesus has taught me to love sinners. Do I do it perfectly? No, but Jesus is constantly helping me improve. An important note here, everyone one is a sinner according to scripture, Christian and non-Christian alike. There is a difference between hating sin and hating people that sin, hating the people is not what Jesus did or taught, although he hates the sin he had to died for.

[Paulhoff]

Christian Dude, which so-called are you talking about, there are so many difference churches and they all say that they speak for a so-called god and they all seem to think that it is their way or the highway. So which so-called god are you talking about and saying that there is only one is not the answer. Also why are there so many things that are wrong in the bible, doesn't anyone know (besides Jefferson) how to cut those parts out.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Foster Zygote]

For my first example I want to use Nineveh. The prophet Nahum prophesied against Nineveh and foretold its downfall. We can argue all day long about when the book was written, but, are there any prophecies in the book that were not immediate prophecies that would take a lot longer to see if they were properly fulfilled?
You can't so easily dismiss the time of the book's writing. If, as is certainly likely, the book was written after the destruction of Nineveh, then it is not evidence of divine prophecy. Unless you can tell me the date of the earliest known text. The fact that no known copies of Nahum survive prior to about 50 BCE leaves open the possibility that any mention that Thebes would never be rebuilt was redacted from later copies. Furthermore, archeology reveals that Nineveh was destroyed in war with the Medes, Babylonians and Susianians, not by a flood.

There are similar problems with the other prophecies that you offer as evidence, but I'll leave others to comment on them at this time as I have things that need attending to.

[Christian Dude]

Christian Dude, which so-called are you talking about, there are so many difference churches and they all say that they speak for a so-called god and they all seem to think that it is their way or the highway. So which so-called god are you talking about and saying that there is only one is not the answer.

The “so-called” I am talking about are people that call them selves Christians and to not follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
Mat 5:45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others?” So, if anyone calls them selves a Christian and acts violently toward anyone because of some perceived work they are doing for God, they aren’t the real thing. I don’t care what denomination or non-denomination they come from.

Paul, I say God put His “way” in the bible for us to know how to be reconciled to Him, and it is Him that says it’s His way or the highway, not me. I am sharing with you what He says about these things. But that is as far as I will go, you don’t have to accept it, and I would still be your friend if we knew each other personally.

Also why are there so many things that are wrong in the bible, doesn't anyone know (besides Jefferson) how to cut those parts out.

I have not found anything wrong in the bible. For example, I have recently been quoted here in the forum that the bible is wrong about the mathematical value of pie in 1 Kings 7:23. It is not and here is why. Quoting directly from Chuck Missler because he explains it better than I do:

“When I was a teenager, I was confronted by a skeptic (a Unitarian, actually) concerning an apparent discrepancy in 1 Kings 7:23. This passage deals with Solomon's Temple and the products of Hiram the Bronze worker: And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

The huge cast bronze basin in 1 Kings 7:23 was 10 cubits in diameter and its circumference was 30 cubits, which is mathematically inaccurate. Almost any schoolboy knows that the circumference of a circle is not the diameter times 3, but rather, the diameter times a well-known constant called "pi". The real value of pi is 3.14159265358979, but is commonly approximated by 22/7. This is assumed, by many, to be an "error" in the Old Testament record, and is often presented as a skeptical rebuttal to the "inerrancy" of the Scripture. How can we say that the Bible is inerrant when it contains such an obvious geometrically incorrect statement? How do we deal with this?

The common word for circumference is qav. Here, however, the spelling of the word for circumference, qaveh, adds a heh (h).
In the Hebrew Bible, the scribes did not alter any text which they felt had been copied incorrectly. Rather, they noted in the margin what they thought the written text should be. The written variation is called a kethiv; and the marginal annotation is called the qere. To the ancient scribes, this was also regarded as a remez, a hint of something deeper. This appears to be the clue to treat the word as a mathematical formula.

The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric: each Hebrew letter also has a numerical value and can be used as a number.
The q has a value of 100; the v has a value of 6; thus, the normal spelling would yield a numerical value of 106. The addition of the h, with a value of 5, increases the numerical value to 111. This indicates an adjustment of the ratio 111/106, or 31.41509433962 cubits. Assuming that a cubit was 1.5 ft., this 15-foot-wide bowl would have had a circumference of 47.12388980385 feet. This Hebrew "code" results in 47.12264150943 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch! (This error is 15 times better than the 22/7 estimate that we were accustomed to using in school!) How did they accomplish this? This accuracy would seem to vastly exceed the precision of their instrumentation. How would they know this? How was it encoded into the text?

Beyond simply these engineering insights of Solomon's day, there are more far-reaching implications of this passage.
1) The Bible is reliable. The "errors" pointed out by skeptics usually derive from misunderstandings or trivial quibbles.
2) The numerical values of the letters are legitimate and apparently can carry significance.
This, in itself, is a major controversy among some. There are some who maintain that the numerical assignments in the Hebrew alphabet were borrowed from the Greek alphabet in a later period, and the influence of Pythagoras, et al. (580-500 B.C.) However, the Babylonians also employed "gematria" (the numerical values of letters and words) during the time of Sargon II. The wall at Khorsabad was supposed to have been built according to the numerical value of Sargon's name.4 The Hebrew use of an alphanumeric alphabet also predates these assumptions.”

I have check this answer out my self and am satisfied it is correct. Every one of the so called errors in scripture always turns out like this once you put some effort into getting to the bottom of the issue.

You can't so easily dismiss the time of the book's writing. If, as is certainly likely, the book was written after the destruction of Nineveh, then it is not evidence of divine prophecy. Unless you can tell me the date of the earliest known text. The fact that no known copies of Nahum survive prior to about 50 BCE leaves open the possibility that any mention that Thebes would never be rebuilt was redacted from later copies. Furthermore, archeology reveals that Nineveh was destroyed in war with the Medes, Babylonians and Susianians, not by a flood.

There are similar problems with the other prophecies that you offer as evidence, but I'll leave others to comment on them at this time as I have things that need attending to.

I believe Nahum was written before 612 BC but not before 664 BC when Thebes fell. It is only the secular world that has a problem with it being written before Nineveh fell. People that won’t believe in an Almighty Creator God that exists outside of time won’t believe someone can know the future as perceived from our perspective. I don’t have a problem with that obviously. How the flood comes into play in the destruction of Nineveh is while the invading armies were encamped around Nineveh, and they could not breach the walls, the river flooded and took out part of the wall and let the invading armies in.

FZ, you may see problems with prophecies in the bible, but I don’t because I accept the dates of when the prophets lived and wrote. There is always evidence in each book for zeroing in on the time it was written. We have the details of who was judge or King in Judea or Israel given to us in the books by the prophets many times. We can date the writing from that as just one of many ways. If people refuse to believe the books were written at the times the books claim they were written, then of course they will not accept a pre-event dating. You then have to believe you have a large group of people, over possibly thousands of years, all co-conspirators making up phony books after the events happened. Man that is hard to believe. I don’t believe any other religions are true, but I also don’t see them making up phony books about prophecy after things happened. I see a few with some made up stuff about what happened in the past, but most just have books that lay out their beliefs and philosophies. The bible does not contain stuff made up about the past, we can verify that the events described happened and the places discussed actually existed. But the bibles does claim it wrote about the events before they happened, and if you investigate the manuscript evidence, archeological evidence and also anthropological evidence, I think you will most likely accept that the books were written before the events happened.

[plumjam]

Two very interesting and well written posts there, Christian Dude.
Both nominated.

[NavyPack]

Rare de-lurk.

May I make a humble request?

Let's stop quoting scripture from separate books of the Bible as rebuttal to scriptural criticism. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of permutations of stories, then holy texts, with a winnowing of the dogma hundreds of years later, while continually going through translation to mis-translation.

The whole problem with these discussions is that when bringing up other denominations, it is inevitably declared that their particular flavor has maintained the spark of the divine hotline. Those 'other' kinds have mis-interpreted which ever archaic parsing of this accident of history they disagree with.

Who gets to decide which passages have 'precedent'? Is there a list?

Just give me a weighted list of definitive rank order importance.
We could then systematically construct a logical analysis to filter out all contradictions.

If not, stop quoting an unrelated line as a work-around when faced with logical criticism of those texts.

[Paulhoff]

But the bibles does claim it wrote about the events before they happened
And where is the proof of that.

Paul

:) :) :)

The bible does not count

[Silentknight]

SK brought up the point similar to this: if someone were to prove a certain religion true, that person would not have to argue against anything else since he proved one religion to be the truth.
If by "SK" you're referring to me and not someone else, where exactly did I say this? I think you're still misinterpreting something I said early on, which was that all religions touch on the truth at some points but not so much on others. You had previously thought I meant that the places where religions differ are the places where Christianity could be proven right, but that's not what I meant at all. I clarified in a follow up post that I meant the opposite in fact.

The places where the religions agree, the empirical moral teachings, the golden rule, and some sort of continuation of life after death (metaphorical vs. literal aside) are where they're most likely to be right. Why? Because if you're looking for universal values, beliefs, or morals, then it makes sense to see where the cultural relativity of different religions lines up. For example, Christianity and Judaism strongly disagree over whether Jesus was a messiah or just a great prophet, what the requirements are for salvation, and even whether or not it's appropriate to go out and preach your religion to others. What they would agree on is treating the least among us in society with the greatest compassion. This kind of moral teaching can be found not just in Abrahamic religions but also in agnostic philosophies like Buddhism and atheist moral systems like Secular Humanism.

Since you're presenting the prophecies as reason for personal belief, and not using them as reasons to convince everyone else to believe the same, then I won't go into them now.

Believe it or not, I am not trying to convince you of the truth that Jesus is Messiah (the savior), and that Heaven and Hell are real places each person will ultimately end up in for eternity. Fortunately for me it is not my job to convince you that what I am telling you is the truth. All I am required to do by God, as instructed by Him in scripture, is to tell you the truth. It is His personal job to reveal to you that what I tell you is the true truth. His instructions also limit what I can do. It would be in rebellion against Him to try and force anyone to accept Christianity for their religion by coercion, violent means, bribery, trickery or any other means. The unfortunate facts are that many people in past history, like many crusaders and the perpetrators of the inquisition for example, have violently tried to force Christianity on people. Today others that call them selves Christians do the same, and many other horrible things, to try and force people to become so called “Christians”. History, and also today, is full of charlatans and megalomaniacs that prey on people using Christianity as their weapon. Don’t base your concepts and beliefs about Jesus on these people, they have nothing to do with him. All a true Christian can do is talk to you about Jesus and His word (the bible). If they do more than that and try to force you to believe what they tell you, they don’t get the teachings of God found in scripture. A Christian that gets it is loving and kind and a servant to all. Dismiss the hateful people you find that call them selves Christians, they don’t get it or are not the real thing. But don’t confuse hating sin and hating people as the same thing. I hate sin. Sin is destructive in people’s lives and tears apart bodies, emotions and souls. I hate sin, I hate my own sin, but I love sinners because Jesus has taught me to love sinners. Do I do it perfectly? No, but Jesus is constantly helping me improve. An important note here, everyone one is a sinner according to scripture, Christian and non-Christian alike. There is a difference between hating sin and hating people that sin, hating the people is not what Jesus did or taught, although he hates the sin he had to died for.
I highlighted the part I agree with.

I do have a minor comment about the part about loving the sinner and hating the sin, although more as an aside, since I know you didn't present or intend it this way. That teaching originated in mainstream Christianity and is not specifically found anywhere in the Bible. Throughout the Bible there is very little if any distinction between the sin and the individual who committed it, and the sinners were forced to bear the full brunt of the frequently brutal punishments carried out against their sins. But this is another topic entirely.

[Robert Oz]

I asked my self what would be the biggest difference between Christianity and all other religions. And I also thought about what in Christianity might prove it to be true. <snip> What could be considered one of the biggest differences and also what might prove it true. I came up with prophecy.

No other religion has near the amount of prophecy that Christianity has, and that prophecy, if accurate and correct could possibly prove Christianity to be the truth.

<snip>

This post is not that detailed with tons of specific examples, but I do present prophecy, and the vast amount found in both the Old Testament and New Testament, as a major difference in Christianity compared to all other major religions (other than Judaism). Again I propose to you that the Almighty Creator God uses prophecy as a way to verify that a communication to us from Him is real and not counterfeit.


Christian Dude, the examples you have given above are also included in the Tanakh. You, yourself, admit Judaism is comparable to Christianity in prophecy. The fact that Jews believe that Jesus was a false prophet is beside the point. The prophecies are the same for the most part.

I am reminded of Rowan Atkinson's stand-up comedy act where he portrays the devil and is doing a roll-call in hell. At one stage he calls, "Christians. Christians. Ah, yes, I'm sorry... the Jews were right".

So, Christian Dude, considering the prophecies are included in the Tanakh, how do you then conclude that Christianity is the truth and Judaism is not.


I have not found anything wrong in the bible.


What is your opinion on the differing geneologies of Christ presented in Matthew and Luke?

[Foster Zygote]

Christian Dude, the examples you have given above are also included in the Tanakh. You, yourself, admit Judaism is comparable to Christianity in prophecy. The fact that Jews believe that Jesus was a false prophet is beside the point. The prophecies are the same for the most part.

I am reminded of Rowan Atkinson's stand-up comedy act where he portrays the devil and is doing a roll-call in hell. At one stage he calls, "Christians. Christians. Ah, yes, I'm sorry... the Jews were right".

So, Christian Dude, considering the prophecies are included in the Tanakh, how do you then conclude that Christianity is the truth and Judaism is not.
Good point. I might add that the Muslims also recognize the Old Testament prophets. So Christian Dude's arguments could also serve in support of Islam.

What is your opinion on the differing geneologies of Christ presented in Matthew and Luke?
Yes, I've also asked this question in the thread that led to the creation of this one. I've heard the usual apologetics that one represents the line of Joseph and the other is the line of Mary, but it doesn't add up. Matthew 1:16 says that Joseph was the son of Jacob. Luke 3:23 states that Joseph was the son of Heli. In fact, the genealogies of the two books don't have a single name in common between David and Joseph.

[SirPhilip]

Believe it or not, I am not trying to convince you of the truth that Jesus is Messiah (the savior), Ah, so arousing on a public stage contempt by those on a higher intellectual and moral ground then.

...and that Heaven and Hell are real places each person will ultimately end up in for eternity. Fortunately for me it is not my job to convince you that what I am telling you is the truth. All I am required to do by God, as instructed by Him in scripture, is to tell you the truth. Which is exactly what a Muslim will declare with asinine certainty about Mohammad (30x113mm HEI be upon him), and equally as indifferent to you going through this (http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa1/belief/hell_description.html) for all eternity. Would you like a cup of tea?

[Christian Dude]

The two different genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are Joseph’s line and Mary’s line. The split comes at King David’s sons, Solomon and Nathan. Matthew was concerned with showing the Jews that Jesus was the legal King of the Jews because Jesus was Messiah, and the Messiah was the ultimate and final King of the Jews. Matthew only goes back to Abraham because he is establishing the argument of the kingly line. He comes down through Joseph’s line (Solomon) because, legally, Joseph was the legal king of the Jews while he was alive. Although there had not been a ruling king since the return from the Babylonian captivity, Joseph was in the kingly line and the actual heir. So because Joseph was Jesus’ legal father, Jesus was the heir to the throne as well. Just a side note, that means James was king for three days until his brother got back from the dead.

Luke was concerned with showing that Jesus was the perfect man and fully human. That is why Luke goes all the way to Adam as well, he is showing that Jesus is a real man. He comes down through Mary’s line (Nathan) for that purpose. Joseph’s line does not show how he is a real person because there is no immediate biological connection between Jesus and Joseph. It is Mary that gives Jesus his direct biological connection to mankind so that is the genealogy Luke used. That is why Luke uses the phrase “being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph”, it the the major clue that this is Mary’s line. Joseph is also the son-in-law of Heli, so it was also correct in a Jewish genealogy not to particularly identify a son-in-law as a son-in-law, it was also valid to call him just a son if a father-in-law loved the son-in-law like his own and adopted the son. This was common if a man only had daughters. But again, it is Heli that is the biological father of Mary, who is the biological connection to mankind for Jesus.

[PBTree]

The two different genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are Joseph’s line and Mary’s line. The split comes at King David’s sons, Solomon and Nathan. Matthew was concerned with showing the Jews that Jesus was the legal King of the Jews because Jesus was Messiah, and the Messiah was the ultimate and final King of the Jews. Matthew only goes back to Abraham because he is establishing the argument of the kingly line. He comes down through Joseph’s line (Solomon) because, legally, Joseph was the legal king of the Jews while he was alive. Although there had not been a ruling king since the return from the Babylonian captivity, Joseph was in the kingly line and the actual heir. So because Joseph was Jesus’ legal father, Jesus was the heir to the throne as well. Just a side note, that means James was king for three days until his brother got back from the dead.

Luke was concerned with showing that Jesus was the perfect man and fully human. That is why Luke goes all the way to Adam as well, he is showing that Jesus is a real man. He comes down through Mary’s line (Nathan) for that purpose. Joseph’s line does not show how he is a real person because there is no immediate biological connection between Jesus and Joseph. It is Mary that gives Jesus his direct biological connection to mankind so that is the genealogy Luke used. That is why Luke uses the phrase “being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph”, it the the major clue that this is Mary’s line. Joseph is also the son-in-law of Heli, so it was also correct in a Jewish genealogy not to particularly identify a son-in-law as a son-in-law, it was also valid to call him just a son if a father-in-law loved the son-in-law like his own and adopted the son. This was common if a man only had daughters. But again, it is Heli that is the biological father of Mary, who is the biological connection to mankind for Jesus.

;)

Commandment number 7 is: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Seems a bit weird that god broke his own commandments to impregnate Mary (without her permission it would seem) and cuckold poor old Joseph. And to make it worse, Joseph then had to support the fruit of this chap's adulterous behaviour.

What a guy :nope:

[PBTree]

The two different genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are Joseph’s line and Mary’s line. The split comes at King David’s sons, Solomon and Nathan. Matthew was concerned with showing the Jews that Jesus was the legal King of the Jews because Jesus was Messiah, and the Messiah was the ultimate and final King of the Jews. Matthew only goes back to Abraham because he is establishing the argument of the kingly line. He comes down through Joseph’s line (Solomon) because, legally, Joseph was the legal king of the Jews while he was alive. Although there had not been a ruling king since the return from the Babylonian captivity, Joseph was in the kingly line and the actual heir. So because Joseph was Jesus’ legal father, Jesus was the heir to the throne as well. Just a side note, that means James was king for three days until his brother got back from the dead.



Would I be right in assuming that royal lines never allow a 'base born' child to assume the throne. That being the case, how can jesus son of Mary and fathered by someone other than her husband at the time, be the heir?

:)

[arthwollipot]

The problem I have with Biblical prophecy is that they all fall under what I refer to as the Nostradamus Effect.

For a start, some prophecies were only reported after the event in question. Essentially, some city gets destroyed, and it is reported that it was destroyed according to prophecy even though no record of such a prophecy has survived. That's one problem.

The second problem is more insidious, because generally it's easy to sort out those prophecies that were only written down after the event occurred. The problem is this:

Prophecies are vague.

Sure, they may be written down before an event occurs, but they are only interpreted to refer to that event after it occurs. Compare how many people claimed that Nostradamus predicted 9/11 before the event, with how many people claimed it after the event. Before it happened, no-one said that Nostradamus was predicting that a terrorist would bring down two highly-recognised buildings by flying planes into them. But after it happened, the woowaves were swarming with people all yelling "Nostradamus predicted that!!"

The Nostradamus Effect states that no-one knows what a prophecy refers to until after the event occurs and people start interpreting it according to that event. This is why I consider the "fulfilled prophecy" argument to be a weak one.

[Foster Zygote]

The two different genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are Joseph’s line and Mary’s line. The split comes at King David’s sons, Solomon and Nathan.
Let's examine this claim:

First, let's look at the verses in question.


6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,

Both books make a direct link between David and Joseph. At no point is any indication given that the book of Luke is presenting the ancestry of Mary. The line "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph" is easily explained by Luke 1:35, The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." This is establishing that Jesus was born to a virgin, that God was the father, not Joseph. The author of Luke is simply reminding the reader of this. But the book of Luke also clearly states that Joseph was the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, etc.

The fact is that both authors wrote their own versions of an earlier story, both adding a popular narrative element in the form of royal descent, and both fabricating their genealogies independently of one another.

[Frinkiak7]

<snip>I am reminded of Rowan Atkinson's stand-up comedy act where he portrays the devil and is doing a roll-call in hell. At one stage he calls, "Christians. Christians. Ah, yes, I'm sorry... the Jews were right".

Not to detract from the main topic, but in the spirit (pun intended) of the day, here's the clip that Robert Oz is referring to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UbqZ_oN5do

[articulett]

The problem with all religious folks is they set out to prove to themselves their religions are right. The Mormons get "testimony"; the Pentacostals speak in tongues; The Scientologists are successful and Tom Cruise "happens upon accidents". As a young Catholic girl I noted that the Catholics were the ones always getting "signs" like stigmata-- plus Mother Theresa was a Catholic and everyone knew she was the "nicest person in the world"--positively saintly. The Muslims get prophesies and repeat "There is no god but Allah"-- I met Buddhists that chant and when they get what they chant for they consider it proof of the truth of their Buddhist sect. I understood that they could not all be right-- but they all sure thought they were. I realized that people could really truly believe they were right and be very wrong. Jonestown happened when I was a kid.

Then I grew up and learned about confirmation bias. I learned from Randi how easy people are to fool--how they fool themselves. I also learned that scientists try to prove their beliefs wrong, because it's the only way to really find out what is true-- trying to prove one's beliefs right is a recipe for confirmation bias. It's the basis for all kinds of bigotry and delusions and woo. You can test beliefs; you don't need "faith". What a revelation. I had always wondered why scientists weren't testing to find out what prophet or infallible leader was true since our collective eternities supposedly depended on believing the right thing and following the right nebulous rubric.

Religions encourage this kind of childish thinking well into adulthood where it can stupefy and divide people as they convince themselves they know "divine secrets" that others are not privy too. They learn to see those who think like them as better more moral people and those that do not as "evil". It's all part of keeping the delusions alive. It turns people in "believers" that imagine they are doing good due to what they believe and what they preach and who they feel superior too. It leads to people who imagine they are doing great good while they cause suffering and furthering stupidity.

[SirPhilip]

The problem with all religious folks is they set out to prove to themselves their religions are right. The Mormons get "testimony"; the Pentacostals speak in tongues; The Scientologists are successful and Tom Cruise "happens upon accidents". As a young Catholic girl I noted that the Catholics were the ones always getting "signs" like stigmata-- plus Mother Theresa was a Catholic and everyone knew she was the "nicest person in the world"--positively saintly. The Muslims get prophesies and repeat "There is no god but Allah"-- I met Buddhists that chant and when they get what they chant for they consider it proof of the truth of their Buddhist sect. I understood that they could not all be right-- but they all sure thought they were. I realized that people could really truly believe they were right and be very wrong. Jonestown happened when I was a kid.

Then I grew up and learned about confirmation bias. I learned from Randi how easy people are to fool--how they fool themselves. I also learned that scientists try to prove their beliefs wrong, because it's the only way to really find out what is true-- trying to prove one's beliefs right is a recipe for confirmation bias. It's the basis for all kinds of bigotry and delusions and woo. You can test beliefs; you don't need "faith". What a revelation. I had always wondered why scientists weren't testing to find out what prophet or infallible leader was true since our collective eternities supposedly depended on believing the right thing and following the right nebulous rubric.

Religions encourage this kind of childish thinking well into adulthood where it can stupefy and divide people as they convince themselves they know "divine secrets" that others are not privy too. They learn to see those who think like them as better more moral people and those that do not as "evil". It's all part of keeping the delusions alive. It turns people in "believers" that imagine they are doing good due to what they believe and what they preach and who they feel superior too. It leads to people who imagine they are doing great good while they cause suffering and furthering stupidity. Pat Condell can handle it, my dear.

[Christian Dude]

FZ, I gave you and Robert a reasonable answer to your question on the two different genealogies. I am not trying to convince you so I am not going to keep going on about it. I gave you a reasonable answer and you rejected it. I am perfectly ok with that, you have 100% freedom to disagree and I will always respect that. Although I have a hope you would one day see the truth of scripture and Jesus as your savior and Lord, all I can do is give you, and others, the reasonable answers I have knowledge of for your questions, and let the Lord do the rest. The other thing I can do is pray to the Father that He would send His Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to you that Jesus is savior and Lord. That is as far as I can go, scripture does not allow me to go any farther. The reason is because I am a sinner my self, I am just as guilty as the next guy when judged in comparison to the Perfect Holy God. I can’t save anyone, I can’t even convince anyone of the truth about Jesus and sin. I couldn’t even save my self. It is the Holy Spirit that has to do a supernatural work to show someone the truth. No one else can when it comes to the revelation of God. So I hope you understand, when people ask me questions I will give them the best reasonable answers I know, but that is all I can do, I can’t go any farther because I can’t convince you no matter what I was to try and do. The Holy Spirit has to convince you, so I leave that part to Him.

[djpar]

CD,

Jesus is shown in the Bible as believing that epilepsy is demonic possession (Mk 9:14-29)

Jesus is shown in the Bible as accepting the deaf muteness was the tying of the tongue by Satan (Matt 9:32-33 and 12:22; Lk 11:14)

Jesus seems to have accepted the Davidic authorship of the Psalms (Mk 12:36; Lk 20:42)

Jesus seems to accept the Mosaic authorship of the Torah (Mk 7:10 and 10:3; Lk 5:14)

The latter two are acceptances are roundly dismissed in biblical scholarship today.

Then there are statements attested to Jesus about "those standing here shall not taste death.." and "this generation will certainly not pass away.." (Matt 16:27-28; Matt 24:34)

These are just a few examples. There are also the inconsistencies between the Gospel authors as mention previously, and many more issues.

Isn't it more likely that the Bible represents the history of a Semitic tribe of peoples whose oral stories were eventually written down, embellished, redacted as well as mistranslated, and not the word of the creator of the universe?

[plumjam]

The problem with all religious folks is they set out to prove to themselves their religions are right. The Mormons get "testimony"; the Pentacostals speak in tongues; The Scientologists are successful and Tom Cruise "happens upon accidents". As a young Catholic girl I noted that the Catholics were the ones always getting "signs" like stigmata-- plus Mother Theresa was a Catholic and everyone knew she was the "nicest person in the world"--positively saintly. The Muslims get prophesies and repeat "There is no god but Allah"-- I met Buddhists that chant and when they get what they chant for they consider it proof of the truth of their Buddhist sect. I understood that they could not all be right-- but they all sure thought they were. I realized that people could really truly believe they were right and be very wrong. Jonestown happened when I was a kid.

Then I grew up and learned about confirmation bias. I learned from Randi how easy people are to fool--how they fool themselves. I also learned that scientists try to prove their beliefs wrong, because it's the only way to really find out what is true-- trying to prove one's beliefs right is a recipe for confirmation bias. It's the basis for all kinds of bigotry and delusions and woo. You can test beliefs; you don't need "faith". What a revelation. I had always wondered why scientists weren't testing to find out what prophet or infallible leader was true since our collective eternities supposedly depended on believing the right thing and following the right nebulous rubric.

Religions encourage this kind of childish thinking well into adulthood where it can stupefy and divide people as they convince themselves they know "divine secrets" that others are not privy too. They learn to see those who think like them as better more moral people and those that do not as "evil". It's all part of keeping the delusions alive. It turns people in "believers" that imagine they are doing good due to what they believe and what they preach and who they feel superior too. It leads to people who imagine they are doing great good while they cause suffering and furthering stupidity.

Mormons - check
Scientologists - check
Tom Cruise - check
Jonestown - check
Arti, you were doing great up until then... but what happened?!?
You forgot to mention the hijackers.
I hope you aren't losing the old magic.

[articulett]

The problem with all religious folks is they set out to prove to themselves their religions are right. The Mormons get "testimony"; the Pentacostals speak in tongues; The Scientologists are successful and Tom Cruise "happens upon accidents". As a young Catholic girl I noted that the Catholics were the ones always getting "signs" like stigmata-- plus Mother Theresa was a Catholic and everyone knew she was the "nicest person in the world"--positively saintly. The Muslims get prophesies and repeat "There is no god but Allah"-- I met Buddhists that chant and when they get what they chant for they consider it proof of the truth of their Buddhist sect. I understood that they could not all be right-- but they all sure thought they were. I realized that people could really truly believe they were right and be very wrong. Jonestown happened when I was a kid.

Then I grew up and learned about confirmation bias. I learned from Randi how easy people are to fool--how they fool themselves. I also learned that scientists try to prove their beliefs wrong, because it's the only way to really find out what is true-- trying to prove one's beliefs right is a recipe for confirmation bias. It's the basis for all kinds of bigotry and delusions and woo. You can test beliefs; you don't need "faith". What a revelation. I had always wondered why scientists weren't testing to find out what prophet or infallible leader was true since our collective eternities supposedly depended on believing the right thing and following the right nebulous rubric.

Religions encourage this kind of childish thinking well into adulthood where it can stupefy and divide people as they convince themselves they know "divine secrets" that others are not privy too. They learn to see those who think like them as better more moral people and those that do not as "evil". It's all part of keeping the delusions alive. It turns people in "believers" that imagine they are doing good due to what they believe and what they preach and who they feel superior too. It leads to people who imagine they are doing great good while they cause suffering and furthering stupidity.

[Foster Zygote]

FZ, I gave you and Robert a reasonable answer to your question on the two different genealogies.

I do not find your argument that Luke presents the lineage of Mary to be at all reasonable. There is nothing in the statement from Luke to logically indicate that the author was referring to Mary's ancestors rather than Joseph's. The statement from Luke 3:23 is easily parsed and unambiguous. If the author was referring to Mary's genealogy then the logical way to have written that verse would be "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the husband of Mary, who was the daughter of Heli, the son of...". It's that simple.

You are approaching the issue from the perspective that the Bible cannot be erroneous or inconsistent, and when confronted with an inconsistency you rationalize an explanation that is not logically indicated in the text. I suspect that if you were debating a similar inconsistency in the Koran or the Baghavad Ghita you would have no problem seeing the error for what it is, but you are required by your indoctrination to reject evidence of the same problems with your own holy scriptures.

[Moochie]

The problem with all religious folks is they set out to prove to themselves their religions are right. The Mormons get "testimony"; the Pentacostals speak in tongues; The Scientologists are successful and Tom Cruise "happens upon accidents". As a young Catholic girl I noted that the Catholics were the ones always getting "signs" like stigmata-- plus Mother Theresa was a Catholic and everyone knew she was the "nicest person in the world"--positively saintly. The Muslims get prophesies and repeat "There is no god but Allah"-- I met Buddhists that chant and when they get what they chant for they consider it proof of the truth of their Buddhist sect. I understood that they could not all be right-- but they all sure thought they were. I realized that people could really truly believe they were right and be very wrong. Jonestown happened when I was a kid.

Then I grew up and learned about confirmation bias. I learned from Randi how easy people are to fool--how they fool themselves. I also learned that scientists try to prove their beliefs wrong, because it's the only way to really find out what is true-- trying to prove one's beliefs right is a recipe for confirmation bias. It's the basis for all kinds of bigotry and delusions and woo. You can test beliefs; you don't need "faith". What a revelation. I had always wondered why scientists weren't testing to find out what prophet or infallible leader was true since our collective eternities supposedly depended on believing the right thing and following the right nebulous rubric.

Religions encourage this kind of childish thinking well into adulthood where it can stupefy and divide people as they convince themselves they know "divine secrets" that others are not privy too. They learn to see those who think like them as better more moral people and those that do not as "evil". It's all part of keeping the delusions alive. It turns people in "believers" that imagine they are doing good due to what they believe and what they preach and who they feel superior too. It leads to people who imagine they are doing great good while they cause suffering and furthering stupidity.

My religion preaches that I must agree with everybody; therefore, you are quite right.


M.

[Silentknight]

Although I have a hope you would one day see the truth of scripture and Jesus as your savior and Lord, all I can do is give you, and others, the reasonable answers I have knowledge of for your questions, and let the Lord do the rest. The other thing I can do is pray to the Father that He would send His Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to you that Jesus is savior and Lord.

Sorry, but I already see Jesus as a teacher, a rabbi, and one of the great ancient era philosophers along with Socrates, Confucius, and the Buddha. A student-to-teacher relationship is different from a slave-to-master relationship. To worship him as a god would be to diminish him, since no one could ever hope to live up to the example of a god, let alone relate to one in any meaningful way. The words struggle from his sutured lips, only to spill into a heap of useless platitudes.

[articulett]

Mormons - check
Scientologists - check
Tom Cruise - check
Jonestown - check
Arti, you were doing great up until then... but what happened?!?
You forgot to mention the hijackers.
I hope you aren't losing the old magic.

I see you still have no point, no argument, or no clue.

Faith does that to the mind, you know.

After a while all the woo sound the same to me--each spinning their own special little sacred delusion of truthiness that only they seem to be able to make sense of. At least, Christian Dude was something newish-- but in the end, you all just use semantics, logical fallacies, and confirmation bias to keep believing whatever it is you've feel special for "believing in". You are never quite clear what exactly you believe or what evidence (ha!) convinced you, but in order to keep believing it, you have to put science and skeptics down. You post here to pretend to yourself that you've actually considered your position rationally. But you are never even clear as to what "belief" you have or what evidence exists in defense of it. You just bluster at those who don't buy it... and pretend that the other woo think like you. But I don't think you make any more sense to each other than you do to us. It reminds me of all people believing that they "believe in" the same god as everyone else...

(I admit they do all seem the same in some ways--they're all invisible and all communicate in subjective ways to the people that believe in them... but they seem to be handing out conflicting information and advice and there's no way to tell one from a delusion of one or a false one or a mythological one or a schizophrenic voice in one's head.)

After a while it just sounds like the same bluster-- the same bluster as the homeopaths, the truthers, the creationists, the Jehovah Witnesses, the new agers, and the believers in Sylvia Browne. You all use a lot of words to say nothing much at all. I think you are convincing yourself of something, but I'm not sure you are communicating anything of value with us. The truth about you woo is you all sound like the people you think of as "woo", and you don't realize it! You use the same flawed arguments as the people who have beliefs you don't share. And yet you still remain convinced that your woo is true-- just like those you see as "brainwashed"... no amount of evidence can change your mind. (Just like the hijackers I failed to mention last time.) All the reason in the world is no match against someone who believes their salvation hinges on faith.

[Mashuna]

[plumjam] But science is a belief system the same as any of those you've just mentioned. They kept the Wright brothers down you know. You're just close-minded.[/pj]

[joobz]

FZ, I gave you and Robert a reasonable answer to your question on the two different genealogies.
Reasonable implies the use of reason.

The answer you gave clearly does not use reason.
FZ gave the quotes of the two geneologies, which suppor his argument...That both give the geneologies of Joseph and contradict each other.

Now, a reasonable response from you would be one that supports your claim(That the two geneologies are of Jesus' mother and father) with evidence. For example, if you could show that FZ quotes are in error becuase they respresent false transations and that the original texts show you correct, then that would be reasonable.

However, without such evidence, all you have an unreasonable assertion.

I am not trying to convince you so I am not going to keep going on about it. I gave you a reasonable answer and you rejected it. I am perfectly ok with that, you have 100% freedom to disagree and I will always respect that. Although I have a hope you would one day see the truth of scripture and Jesus as your savior and Lord, all I can do is give you, and others, the reasonable answers I have knowledge of for your questions, and let the Lord do the rest. You attempt to make a convincing argument. You then state you aren't trying to convince us of something, but then say you hope that we will be convinced of something.

I must admit I find this double talk quite disturbing. It's as though you are trying to pass off the responsiblity of you posts. Rather than accept your own responsibility for your argument's strengths/weaknesses, you place the full weight of logic on god.


I'm driving to the store.
I'm not actually driving though.
All I can do is hope that god will ensure that the car doesn't crash into something. If it does, then it is god's will and not my fault.

[H'ethetheth]

FZ, I gave you and Robert a reasonable answer to your question on the two different genealogies. I am not trying to convince you so I am not going to keep going on about it. I gave you a reasonable answer and you rejected it. I am perfectly ok with that, you have 100% freedom to disagree and I will always respect that. Although I have a hope you would one day see the truth of scripture and Jesus as your savior and Lord, all I can do is give you, and others, the reasonable answers I have knowledge of for your questions, and let the Lord do the rest. The other thing I can do is pray to the Father that He would send His Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to you that Jesus is savior and Lord. That is as far as I can go, scripture does not allow me to go any farther. The reason is because I am a sinner my self, I am just as guilty as the next guy when judged in comparison to the Perfect Holy God. I can’t save anyone, I can’t even convince anyone of the truth about Jesus and sin. I couldn’t even save my self. It is the Holy Spirit that has to do a supernatural work to show someone the truth. No one else can when it comes to the revelation of God. So I hope you understand, when people ask me questions I will give them the best reasonable answers I know, but that is all I can do, I can’t go any farther because I can’t convince you no matter what I was to try and do. The Holy Spirit has to convince you, so I leave that part to Him.
Christian Dude,
you keep insisting that this revelation by the holy spirit is what is needed to see the truth, and you said previously that this revelation amounts to... ...truth hitting you square in the face, truth that becomes impossible to deny.The phrase "impossible to deny" means to me that denial leads to a logical contradiction. In other words, you are basically saying that the holy spirit has inspired logical undestanding of the truth in your mind. Yet at the same time you give us 100% freedom to disagree, as if we're discussing matters of opinion. We are not; we are, by definition, discussing matters of objectively verifiable truth, because we would like to know how one can be objectively certain that christianity, and not voodoo, is the right religion.
But of course the truth that was inspired was not about objective things:It is the truth that sin is real, and that the way to deal with sin is found in the Bible put there for us by the God who created us. Once the Holy Spirit does His supernatural work and shows us sin is real, you then look around at the world and see a world filled with sin sickness. You then can’t believe you didn’t see it so clearly before. That is, it is a moral truth.
But you try to convince us not by showing us the undeniable reasoning behind the reality of sin, but by quoting bible verses about worldly happenings. The thing is, the truth of the bible is one of the very issues we are discussing here. For instance, you said:
We can date the writing from that as just one of many ways. If people refuse to believe the books were written at the times the books claim they were written, then of course they will not accept a pre-event dating. You then have to believe you have a large group of people, over possibly thousands of years, all co-conspirators making up phony books after the events happened. Man that is hard to believe. I don’t believe any other religions are true, but I also don’t see them making up phony books about prophecy after things happened.You must believe that books like the book of Mormon and the Qur'an are made up, right? Let's say that someone making up such a book were to include prophesies after the fact, precisely to increase the convincingness of the books. Do you think that this kind of deception is beyond man? If so, do you think it would be beyond someone like Satan?

Basically, you are asking us here to choose between
believing that people writing and translating holy books over thousands of years have abused the inherent authority of these texts, like they have ostensibly done with all the holy texts that do not belong to the Bible, or...
believing that the Bible contains the God given truth, preserved over thousands of years, copies, and translations, unlike all the other ancient holy texts.

Not only that, you're putting it as if the answer should be obvious to any sane person.

I honestly am interested in hearing why the truth of Christianity is undeniable to you, but what you've presented so far has only deepened my confusion and made me more curious.
So I'd like to ask you some questions again:

What is your understanding of sin?

What is the undeniable truth about the ubiquity of sin?

How do you know that the Bible, including prophecies, was not written down by frauds, or inspired by the Satan of another religion?

How do you know that your revelation of undeniable truth was not inspired by the Satan of another religion?

Edit: Please note, these are honest questions. I am not the Satan of any religion trying to lead you into doubt or sin.

[Mr Clingford]

Isn't it more likely that the Bible represents the history of a Semitic tribe of peoples whose oral stories were eventually written down, embellished, redacted as well as mistranslated, and not the word of the creator of the universe?
Personally, as I am a theist of the Christian persuasion, my understanding of the Bible combines both of your choices. I find it very helpful in getting some sort of understanding of the earlier parts of the OT by seeing them as stories coming from the Bronze/ Iron Ages.

[SirPhilip]

Personally, as I am a theist of the Christian persuasion, my understanding of the Bible combines both of your choices. I find it very helpful in getting some sort of understanding of the earlier parts of the OT by seeing them as stories coming from the Bronze/ Iron Ages. The primary problem is absurdly uncommon events are depicted in litera as literature. A medieval peasant with common sense wondered what the relevancy was as much as an ecology professor would today.

[articulett]

Edit: Please note, these are honest questions. I am not the Satan of any religion trying to lead you into doubt or sin.

Oh puhlease!-- that's exactly what Satan would say! :p

[H'ethetheth]

Sshh!

[RandFan]

I must admit I find this double talk quite disturbing. It's as though you are trying to pass off the responsiblity of you posts. Rather than accept your own responsibility for your argument's strengths/weaknesses, you place the full weight of logic on god.

I'm driving to the store.
I'm not actually driving though.
All I can do is hope that god will ensure that the car doesn't crash into something. If it does, then it is god's will and not my fault.Good post.

[Paulhoff]

I gave you a reasonable answer and you rejected it. I am perfectly ok with that, you have 100% freedom to disagree and I will always respect that.
And does one, according to your believe, have freedom from punishment, because if one doesn't, then one DOES NOT HAVE 100% FREEDOM.

Paul

:) :) :)

[joobz]

And does one, according to your believe, have freedom from punishment, because if one doesn't, then one DOES NOT HAVE 100% FREEDOM.

Paul

:) :) :)

For punishment, yes. But if you changed your words to consequences, than no.

I am free to jump out my second story window. There is no rules, laws or punishments against it. However, I am not immune or free from the consequences (e.g., broken leg, broken neck...) once I land on the ground.


Now, the apologetic would go that hell isn't a "punishment" but a consequence of actions.

[RandFan]

Now, the apologetic would go that hell isn't a "punishment" but a consequence of actions.
Is god omnipotent?
Is god willing to prevent the consequences?
Is god merciful?
If you say yes to all 3 then there can logically be no hell. An apologist might counter that god is also all just and that there are laws in the universe that god can't contravene. Then god is not omnipotent.

You can't have all 3 and hell also.

[Paulhoff]

For punishment, yes. But if you changed your words to consequences, than no.

I am free to jump out my second story window. There is no rules, laws or punishments against it. However, I am not immune or free from the consequences (e.g., broken leg, broken neck...) once I land on the ground.


Now, the apologetic would go that hell isn't a "punishment" but a consequence of actions.
If one has punishment for making a choice then one does not have freedom of choice, it is that simple no matter how you like to word it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[articulett]

What good is a punishment if you can't learn from your mistakes? What sort of benevolent entity creates a place where his creations can suffer forever?

I wouldn't have a kid if I thought there was the possibility they could suffer forever. It's unthinkably cruel. Nonexistence would be preferable. But all these people worship this god dude who supposedly does just that. It never made sense to me.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What good is a punishment if you can't learn from your mistakes? What sort of benevolent entity creates a place where his creations can suffer forever?

I wouldn't have a kid if I thought there was the possibility they could suffer forever. It's unthinkably cruel. Nonexistence would be preferable. But all these people worship this god dude who supposedly does just that. It never made sense to me.

Just because your small mortal brain cannot comprehend the ways of God does not mean this is not true! I only you would believe, you too could be saved! :D :duck:

:pigsfly. . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . :run:

[RandFan]

What good is a punishment if you can't learn from your mistakes? What sort of benevolent entity creates a place where his creations can suffer forever?

I wouldn't have a kid if I thought there was the possibility they could suffer forever. It's unthinkably cruel. Nonexistence would be preferable. But all these people worship this god dude who supposedly does just that. It never made sense to me.Exactly. Also, there is a legitimate argument to be made that killing your children before the age of accountability is a way of ensuring that they won't suffer for eternity. Thankfully most people only believe in belief. They don't suspend their disbelief enough to kill others.

[articulett]

They apparently believe in "death or "killing" and that it's wrong or something to fear or "sad" or "punishment"... yet the belief system also presumes that there really is no death... just "happily ever after" or "anguish ever after". Humans have a starting point to their consciousness presumably, but no ending point... It makes "thou shall not kill" null in some ways-- because you "can't" according to the belief system.

Theism is just filled with contradictions that I could never make sense of. And then they wave it off (like Gord cheekily did) with the explanation that it's part of the "mystery" and something a mortal like me could never understand... and if only someone would have more faith they would "get it"...

Well, if I can't understand it, then what makes me think my priest or whomever else could?

(Hey, Randfan... the former mormon conference audio is up:
http://exmormonfoundation.org/node/80)

[RandFan]

(Hey, Randfan... the former mormon conference audio is up:
http://exmormonfoundation.org/node/80):) I'm still a Mormon. At least I'm still on the records. Hence atheist Mormon.

Thank you for the link. I'm listening to it now.

[Robert Oz]

Christian Dude,

You missed one of the questions I raised in my previous post:

[T]he examples you have given above are also included in the Tanakh. You, yourself, admit Judaism is comparable to Christianity in prophecy.

<snip>

[C]onsidering the prophecies are included in the Tanakh, how do you then conclude that Christianity is the truth and Judaism is not?



Furthermore, your argument that:


The two different genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are Joseph’s line and Mary’s line.


was shown by Foster Zygote to be contradictory to the words of the Gospels:


Both books make a direct link between David and Joseph. At no point is any indication given that the book of Luke is presenting the ancestry of Mary. The line "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph" is easily explained by Luke 1:35, The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." This is establishing that Jesus was born to a virgin, that God was the father, not Joseph. The author of Luke is simply reminding the reader of this. But the book of Luke also clearly states that Joseph was the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, etc.


You are starting with your conclusion that the Bible is inerrant and twisting its contradictions to make them sound plausible. I doubt you would use this type of reasoning with any other piece of literature. In the end, your "knowledge" of the truth of Christianity is based solely on revelation.


This is evident from your reaction to Foster Zygote's comments on the two genealogies:


Although I have a hope you would one day see the truth of scripture and Jesus as your savior and Lord, all I can do is give you, and others, the reasonable answers I have knowledge of for your questions, and let the Lord do the rest. The other thing I can do is pray to the Father that He would send His Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to you that Jesus is savior and Lord.

<snip>

The Holy Spirit has to convince you, so I leave that part to Him.


----------


On a side note, there was an amusing segment during a mock news broadcast on "Rove" here in Australia last night. The reporter was discussing a case of pareidolia where a cloud formation allegedly took the shape of Jesus Christ.

She then announced, "Meteorologists say that Our Lord and Saviour will clear by Tuesday".

[arthwollipot]

If one has punishment for making a choice then one does not have freedom of choice, it is that simple no matter how you like to word it.There's a difference between "punishment" and "consequences". Joobz' injuries sustained by jumping from a second story window are consequences of that action, they are not punishment. However, if you had previously told him "don't jump out that window or I'll kick you", then you going down and kicking him is punishment.

Punishment requires an entity to do the punishing.

You can have consequences for making a choice while retaining the freedom to make that choice anyway. People do this all the time.

[djpar]

Personally, as I am a theist of the Christian persuasion, my understanding of the Bible combines both of your choices. I find it very helpful in getting some sort of understanding of the earlier parts of the OT by seeing them as stories coming from the Bronze/ Iron Ages.

I think it is very helpful and interesting to get an understanding of the history of the Israelites and their struggles, and how they viewed and changed views on their conception of god.

It only becomes unhelpful and uninteresting when one literalizes the events that are allegorical or unfactual and/or interprets the stories as having a truly supernatural basis. Same for the NT, of course.

If you can read the Bible in the 21st Century, complete with the findings of biblical scholarship and scientific understanding, and it still testifies to literal acts of god, divinely inspired texts and the divinity of Jesus, it is a feat of credulity that I can only admire.

[joobz]

Is god omnipotent?
Is god willing to prevent the consequences?
Is god merciful?
If you say yes to all 3 then there can logically be no hell. An apologist might counter that god is also all just and that there are laws in the universe that god can't contravene. Then god is not omnipotent.

You can't have all 3 and hell also.
Sure you can. Being merciful isn't the same thing as being omni-merciful.

[kbm99]

Sure you can. Being merciful isn't the same thing as being omni-merciful.

An infinite punishment for a finite offense is directly at odds with the entire concept of mercy. And justice, for that matter.

[articulett]

:) I'm still a Mormon. At least I'm still on the records. Hence atheist Mormon.

Thank you for the link. I'm listening to it now.

One of the guys in the intro was a Mormon named Mike who got interested in the truther movement... went to a skeptics forum to learn more... and became a very thankful (moved to tears) atheist as a result.

The former Moonie who talks is awesome too. The talk of religion and how it can control the mind control of even the brightest is an understanding that I'm sure many here recognize. I thought of Christian Dude during his speech. I encourage everyone to listen to the speakers from the exmormon conference that I linked earlier.

[joobz]

An infinite punishment for a finite offense is directly at odds with the entire concept of mercy. And justice, for that matter.
Again. It isn't a punishment, it's a consequence.

[RandFan]

Sure you can. Being merciful isn't the same thing as being omni-merciful.Please to explain the difference? How is never ending torment merciful? How is it just? How can the consequences of finite sin be infinte torment? Isn't god perfect? Wouldn't his mercy also be perfect?

What does it mean to say god is merciful?
What does it mean to say god is just?
Where do the rules come from?
Is god omnipotent?

No. You can't.

[Paulhoff]

Again. It isn't a punishment, it's a consequence.
Hell is a punishment, it has always been made out as a punishment and if that is the only thing a so-called all knowing god can come up with, well it isn't much of a so-called god is it.

What I get a kick out of is how people put up with that limited idea of a so-called god, but it does make sense, they just use this so-called god to justify their limited compassion.

Paul

:) :) :)

[RandFan]

Again. It isn't a punishment, it's a consequence.Consequence of what? Saying it's a consequence isn't saying anything. I can say blue is a consequence of bees but that doesn't advance any understanding. Why is it a consequence?

I can tell you that pain is a consequence of sticking your hand in the fire and that is demonstrable. We also know the causes and the mechanisms. You can't demonstrate that hell is the consequence of sin. Can you explain the causes and mechanisms?

[Powa]

Again. It isn't a punishment, it's a consequence.
But God created Hell for the explicit purpose of torturing souls for all eternity if they disobay him. How is sending them to Hell not punishment?

[joobz]

Please to explain the difference? How is never ending torment merciful? How is it just? How can the consequences of finite sin be infinte torment? Isn't god perfect? Wouldn't his mercy also be perfect?
You need not show mercy to all, equally.

[RandFan]

You need not show mercy to all, equally.


Is god not just?
Is god able to save *someone who commits a finite crime from an infinite consequence?
Is god willing to do so?
*Someone who does not believe that god made humans sick and commanded them to be well.

[Paulhoff]

You need not show mercy to all, equally.
We're not talking about anyone, we're talking about a so-called merciful god. And go to a childrens hosital sometime and see many children in pain and some dying a horrible death and get back to me on the merciful thing. Wait, forget it, you’ll just justify this so-called god of yours, you’ll make it work for you one way or another.

Paul

:) :) :)

[joobz]

Consequence of what? Saying it's a consequence isn't saying anything. I can say blue is a consequence of bees but that doesn't advance any understanding. Why is it a consequence?

I can tell you that pain is a consequence of sticking your hand in the fire and that is demonstrable. We also know the causes and the mechanisms. You can't demonstrate that hell is the consequence of sin. Can you explain the causes and mechanisms?
From what I understand of the apologetics, Sin is the seperation of one's self from god. Hell is the absense of god. Therefore, Hell is merely the consequence of sinning.

To claim that god isn't showing mercy or is evil because he allows people to go to hell is simply arguing outside of definition of sin and hell. It's like asking why doesn't god let us travel north of the northpole. The definition simply doesn't allow for the argument being made.

FYI: I'm arguing this from an intellectual point of view becuase I think it appropriate for us to debate the "best" arguments rather than the strawmen we create of faith.

[RandFan]

But God created Hell for the explicit purpose of torturing souls for all eternity if they disobay him. How is sending them to Hell not punishment?Why couldn't god figure out a better plan? Why not torture someone for a million years and then let them out of hell? Why should infinite torture be a just punishment for a finite crime?

Who came up with the humane concept that the punishment should fit the crime?

If it is just a consequence then how can we escape it? Doesn't it follow that if god can forgive us of our sins that at some point a person in hell would pay for said sins?

[joobz]

Is god not just?
I don't know. I was simply answering the three questions you posed earlier. Had you included Just in the list of questions, I wouldn't have been able to give my answer. :D


Is god able to save *someone who commits a finite crime from an infinite consequence?
Is god willing to do so?
*Someone who does not believe that god made humans sick and commanded them to be well.
Unfortunately, I do not understand your questions here.

[AkuManiMani]

You need not show mercy to all, equally.

So why is mercy rationed out when there's supposedly an infinite supply?

[RandFan]

From what I understand of the apologetics, Sin is the separation of one's self from god. Hell is the absense of god. Therefore, Hell is merely the consequence of sinning.You aren't answering the questions. You are arguing ad nauseam. Yes, this is the apologetics but they are incoherent.

How can a finite sin separate humans from god for an infinite amount of time? If god can forgive sins why can't he or she put a limit on the consequence?

To claim that god isn't showing mercy or is evil because he allows people to go to hell is simply arguing outside of definition of sin and hell.No it's not. You are simply asserting something without basis. God can't be both just and merciful and fail to find a way to limit the consequences of sin. That's just nonsense. That you just keep repeating propaganda isn't resolving the issues.

It's like asking why doesn't god let us travel north of the northpole. The definition simply doesn't allow for the argument being made.This makes no sense. Why is the fact of god limiting a consequence an impossibility? You can't simply assert something is impossible without some basis.

FYI: I'm arguing this from an intellectual point of view becuase I think it appropriate for us to debate the "best" arguments rather than the strawmen we create of faith. Having graduated seminary and served a two year mission I can assure you that you are doing a very poor job.

[RandFan]

I don't know.?

Why are you responding if you don't know the argument or the position you are arguing in favor of? Please spare us if you are just playing games.

Unfortunately, I do not understand your questions here. Sheesh.

Ok. Let's take this one step at a time.

For the sake of argument and the position that you are staking in favor of that argument, is god omnipotent? Yes or no? It's a binary question. If you don't know what omnipoent is see this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence).

[joobz]

You aren't answering the questions. You are arguing ad nauseam. Yes, this is the apologetics but they are incoherent.

How can a finite sin separate humans from god for an infinite amount of time? If god can forgive sins why can't he or she put a limit on the consequence?
How can my finite footstep towards my mailbox serve as an permanent seperation of me from my house?
Well, it's permanent if I don't walk back to the house.


No it's not. You are simply asserting something without basis. God can't be both just and merciful and fail to find a way to limit the consequences of sin. That's just nonsense. That you just keep repeating propaganda isn't resolving the issues.

[quote=RandFan;4174611]This makes no sense. Why is the fact of god limiting a consequence an impossibility? You can't simply assert something is impossible without some basis.
You can't be close to god(in heaven) and be a sinner(seperated from god). There is no difficulty in this logic.
To claim otherwise is a logical paradox.

Having graduated seminary and served a two year mission I can assure you that you are doing a very poor job.
That's sad, because you are also doing a very poor job of refuting my poor arguments.:)

[joobz]

?

Why are you responding if you don't know the argument or the position you are arguing in favor of? Please spare us if you are just playing games.
I was playing a game with your previous post becuase it was an obviously incomplete argument. I apologize if you feel this is wrong.

Sheesh.

Ok. Let's take this one step at a time.

For the sake of argument and the position that you are staking in favor of that argument, is god omnipotent? Yes or no? It's a binary question. If you don't know what omnipoent is see this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence).
you can walk me through your logic in a bit, but I wish to wait for your response to the sin/hell issue before we continue down this line.

[RandFan]

How can my finite footstep towards my mailbox serve as an permanent seperation of me from my house?
Well, it's permanent if I don't walk back to the house. {sigh}

Is god just? See, your little example would be fine if we weren't talking about a perfect being who is just and omni-benevolent.

You can't argue this in a vacuum. Come on, if you are going to play this part do it right.


You can't be close to god(in heaven) and be a sinner(seperated from god).
There is no difficulty in this logic.
To claim otherwise is a logical paradox.
Are you saying no one can ever be saved? Everyone, according to Christianity is doomed? Really?

That's sad, because you are also doing a very poor job of refuting my poor arguments.No.

[RandFan]

I was playing a game with your previous post becuase it was an obviously incomplete argument.No, I asked you if god was not just. That's not an argument. It's a question. Please note the "?" symbol.

[joobz]

{sigh}

Is god just? See, your little example would be fine if we weren't talking about a perfect being who is just and omni-benevolent.

You can't argue this in a vacuum. Come on, if you are going to play this part do it right.
I'm not arguing this in a vacuum. You are trying to add elements to my argument that aren't there. How is my "proximity" to god make him any less benevolent or perfect?

Besides, the descriptors for god are all contradictory and therefore can't all be true.
For instance, it is also said that god is omnipresent. However, if hell is the absense of god, then hell and god being omnipresent are contradictory.



Are you saying no one can ever be saved? Everyone, according to Christianity is doomed? Really?
"Being Saved" is atoning for sins which is the moving back towards god. it's an active process like walking back towards the house is an active process. If you do not move. If you do not take a step, you are no closer to home.

If you do not ask for forgivness, you are standing still.

Therefore, a "finite sin" can result in a infinite location.

No.
yes.

[AkuManiMani]

You can't be close to god(in heaven) and be a sinner(seperated from god). There is no difficulty in this logic.
To claim otherwise is a logical paradox.

There are plenty of living people who are "sinners," by your definition, who are not being tortured right now. Clearly, mere "separation" from god is not sufficient to induce torture in and of itself -- one must specifically be sent to a place in order for this to occur (i.e. Hell).

So again, the question is how can an omnipotent being be considered merciful (let alone omni-merciful) if it creates a universe in such a way that beings it created (and supposedly loves) are eternally tortured.

[joobz]

No, I asked you if god was not just. That's not an argument. It's a question. Please note the "?" symbol. Perhaps you can show me where in this post you ask if god is just.



Is god omnipotent?
Is god willing to prevent the consequences?
Is god merciful?
If you say yes to all 3 then there can logically be no hell. An apologist might counter that god is also all just and that there are laws in the universe that god can't contravene. Then god is not omnipotent.


You can't have all 3 and hell also.


I was merely pointing out that you can have all three. you simply can't have all 4. (including Just).

[RandFan]

How is my "proximity" to god make him any less benevolent or perfect?We will get there but you are going to have to be sincere and pay attention and answer my questions.

"Being Saved" is atoning for sins which is the moving back towards god.So, it's possible for there to be a change in state. According to you.

it's an active process like walking back towards the house is an active process. If you do not move. If you do not take a step, you are no closer to home. Following the death is it not possible to walk back towards god?

If you do not ask for forgivness, you are standing still. And after death, can a person ask for forgiveness?

Therefore, a "finite sin" can result in a infinite location. This doesn't follow. Why is your state, or position in relationship to god, fixed?

yes.Nonsense, your response so far have been simple minded apologetics. But let's wait and see where we get.

For instance, it is also said that god is omnipresent. However, if hell is the absense of god, then hell and god being omnipresent are contradictory. So, let me get this right, an impossible claim about god proves something in your favor? Please to elaborate?

Which Christian religions don't believe that god is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omni-benevolent? Or are you just picking and choosing for convenience sake?

[joobz]

There are plenty of living people who are "sinners," by your definition, who are not being tortured right now. Clearly, mere "separation" from god is not sufficient to induce torture in and of itself -- one must specifically be sent to a place in order for this to occur (i.e. Hell).

So again, the question is how can an omnipotent being be considered merciful (let alone omni-merciful) if it creates a universe in such a way that beings it created (and supposedly loves) are eternally tortured.
Well, as far as I know, the concept of hell as a mideval dungeon is a latecomer to the christian faith. Hell is seperation from god, and the idea of being seperated from god is supposed to be the torture. The point is that the torture may not be obvious to those experiencing it.

[RandFan]

Is god not just?
I don't know.

What do you mean you don't know?

Is god just?

To pretend that god being just isn't an aspect of the Christian god is being obtuse. But even if that were not the case I just added the variable. To then spout "I don't know" is to be disingenuous. Show me a Christian religion that doesn't believe that god is just. Come on.

[joobz]

We will get there but you are going to have to be sincere and pay attention and answer my questions.
I am being quite sincere. Please do not infer otherwise.

So, it's possible for there to be a change in state. According to you.yes.

Following the death is it not possible to walk back towards god?
According to common christian thought, no.


And after death, can a person ask for forgiveness?according to the bible, no.

This doesn't follow. Why is your state, or position in relationship to god, fixed?
If you are unable to move anymore. you are stuck where you are.

Nonsense, your response so far have been simple minded apologetics. But let's wait and see where we get.
You claim as such, but you haven't proven it.

So, let me get this right, an impossible claim about god proves something in your favor? Please to elaborate?
violations in the law of non-contradiction simply demonstrate that an understanding is wrong. It doesn't invalidate god. It only invalidates that interpretation of god.


Which Christian religions don't believe that god is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omni-benevolent? Or are you just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
Why is seeking the most self-consistent argument for christianity equal to "for convenience sake"?

[joobz]

What do you mean you don't know?

Is god just?

To pretend that god being just isn't an aspect of the Christian god is being obtuse. But even if that were not the case I just added the variable. To then spout "I don't know" is to be disingenuous. Show me a Christian religion that doesn't believe that god is just. Come on.

Yes, god is to be just, which should have been part of your original argument.

But let's say we do accept all your points, it still doesn't contradict hell.

1.) God is omnipotent. check
2.) god is willing to prevent the consequences?
Yes. He has allowed the path back to him to be open.
3.) God is merciful.
Yes. He has allowed the path back to him to be open.
4.) God is just.
Yes. He weighs all equally on thier own accounts.

None of this contradicts a "hell".
We are to have free will. A will to chose not to be with god or to be with god. That's about it. Our choices dictate that location. Just as much as a step towards the mail box or a step to the house dictates where we are standing.

[AkuManiMani]

Well, as far as I know, the concept of hell as a mideval dungeon is a latecomer to the christian faith. Hell is seperation from god, and the idea of being seperated from god is supposed to be the torture. The point is that the torture may not be obvious to those experiencing it.

Wow, Hell doesn't sound so bad after all then. Thanks for clearing things up for us :)

[RandFan]

I am being quite sincere. Please do not infer otherwise.Then please to act like it.

According to common christian thought, no.Is this "thought" logical and consistent with the attributes of the Christian god?

according to the bible, no. Is that logically consistent with what the Bible teaches about god? (see below)

If you are unable to move anymore. you are stuck where you are. Here is where you go south. Why? Why are you "stuck" where you are? I'll go back to my original post where you conveniently failed to answer ALL of my questions. Who makes the rules? Who made hell? Does god have power over hell?

violations in the law of non-contradiction simply demonstrate that an understanding is wrong. It doesn't invalidate god. It only invalidates that interpretation of god. That's nonsense. That's like saying a belief that I can flap my arms and fly doesn't violate the laws of physics so long as I interpret the laws in a way that allows for flying via flapping my arms.

Why is seeking the most self-consistent argument for Christianity equal to "for convenience sake"? Very simple. It's like trying to remove gravity from the equation to seek the most self-consistent argument for flapping your arms to fly. Bobbing and weaving isn't argument. Self consistency is of no value if you have to ignore attributes of god.

[Silentknight]

There's just one little flaw with the type of belief whose perspective you're arguing from, joobz. Yes, I'm aware that this belief exists because I've heard it before, and I know why you're arguing from it.

Some sects of Christianity have redefined hell to be separation from God, as opposed to the traditional view of hell as a literal pit of fire and brimstone where people are burned for all eternity. This however sets up two major contradictions. First, why would these same Christians be pushing so hard to convert others to their beliefs, to the point where they try to prove that God exists? If hell were merely separation without the torment, because God is merciful, then it would be less imperative for them to save people's souls. In other words, if people truly choose to separate from God, then they should leave people to make their God-given free choice. Second, how exactly is it possible to separate oneself from an omnipresent God? The Bible itself says that God is everywhere, including hell (Sheol, the grave in Hebrew) unless Psalm 139:8 is just a metaphor.

[RandFan]

1.) God is omnipotent. check
2.) god is willing to prevent the consequences?
Yes. He has allowed the path back to him to be open.
3.) God is merciful.
Yes. He has allowed the path back to him to be open.
4.) God is just.
Yes. He weighs all equally on thier own accounts.

None of this contradicts a "hell". He doesn't allow the path to remain open once you die. You are stuck in eternal torment. Not one hundred years. Not one thousand years. Not one million years. Not one billion years....

If your child were stuck in a foreign prison due to his or her stupidity would you do everything in your power to get him or her back? Let's assume that your child disobeyed you and went to another country against your will and committed crimes that he or she knew you were against.

Would you act to save your child?

What if your child didn't know that you existed? What if he or she was told by a stranger that "you existed and that if you disobeyed the orders given you by the stranger that you would forever ostracize your child."

Would you still refuse to help your child?

Now, please consider the following scripture:

Matthew 7:11
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

If I was in hell and asked god to save me, would he?

[RandFan]

Joobz,

Another little problem with your thesis is the scriptural basis for judgment and atonement. To accept your argument we would have to ignore both. And there is a hell of a lot about both in the scriptures. We all are sinners. We all fall short of the glory of god. Christ is said to pay for our sins. He is the sacrificial lamb foreshadowed in the OT.

[articulett]

You have a single life to f* up your whole eternity.... eons... gazillions of years to the gazillionth power...

It's like punish a baby forever for not learning to walking soon enough...

If you are just going to get oblivion, then that's not so bad... that's what we atheists are planning on getting... but hell??

And the Catholic church affirms that "hell is a real place"-- of course the threat of it doesn't seem to scare any preists away from pedophilia so I'm not sure how many people really believe in hell...

Do you know how many mortal peoples' lives have been destroyed by fear of hell? http://richarddawkins.net/article,3299,n,n

[djpar]

Well, as far as I know, the concept of hell as a mideval dungeon is a latecomer to the christian faith. Hell is seperation from god, and the idea of being seperated from god is supposed to be the torture.

Is this really the order it came in? I'm really interested in the chronology of the definition of hell.

[joobz]

He doesn't allow the path to remain open once you die. You are stuck in eternal torment. Not one hundred years. Not one thousand years. Not one million years. Not one billion years....As far as christians understand it. You are correct. Unlike his other creations, God made man with freewill. freewill is what permits man to have a choice to live without sin or with sin. If freewill is part of our humanity, then it is logical to expect that upon our death we lose our freewill as we lose our life. If we lose our freewill, we lose the ability to go to god willingly. It is that willingness to go to god which provides us the path back.

But it is merciful to have opened the path in the first place. Prior to that, there was no opportunity to enter heaven.
The fact that he opened it up makes him merciful.
The fact that he gives everyone the same opportunity makes him just.



If your child were stuck in a foreign prison due to his or her stupidity would you do everything in your power to get him or her back? Let's assume that your child disobeyed you and went to another country against your will and committed crimes that he or she knew you were against.

Would you act to save your child?

What if your child didn't know that you existed? What if he or she was told by a stranger that "you existed and that if you disobeyed the orders given you by the stranger that you would forever ostracize your child."

Would you still refuse to help your child?
Note that you hit on exactly what I hate about the christian faith. Of course I would.

the entire story of Abraham galls me. Never would I sacrifice my child. Such a god who would ask such a thing (even as a test), is not a god worth worshiping.

[joobz]

Joobz,

Another little problem with your thesis is the scriptural basis for judgment and atonement. To accept your argument we would have to ignore both. And there is a hell of a lot about both in the scriptures. We all are sinners. We all fall short of the glory of god. Christ is said to pay for our sins. He is the sacrificial lamb foreshadowed in the OT.
yes, He is the blood sacrifice which repairs the seperation between us and god.
But that blood sacrifice only works when you accept it willingly.

I see no contradiction in my argument and the concept of judgement and atonement.

[Safe-Keeper]

You have a single life to f* up your whole eternity.... eons... gazillions of years to the gazillionth power... It's quite... messed up, yes. At least with religions involving reincarnation, you get multiple tries. With the Abrahamic religions, you get one shot. You have an infinite number of choices on how to formulate your beliefs on souls, gods, the afterlife, your previous incarnations, and so on. Literally an infinite number of possibilities. One shot. And if you choose wrong, it's torture for eternity.

Is God just?If you are for eternal torture for following a false god, essentially receiving punishment that is not proportional to your 'crime', which should not even be considered a crime in the first place as we in 2008 are supposed to respect this concept of freedom of religion - then yes, god is just.

And as a response to the inevitable counterargument*, please cut talking about how we choose our punishment with our miraculous free will. It's nonsensical and frankly a bit disturbing. Following this logic, an abusive father is perfectly within his right to beat his son with a belt if the son arrives home five minutes to late. The Soviets were perfectly moral when causing mothers, girlfriends, daughters and fathers to simply disappear to work camps and prisons, often never to be seen again. The Germans were perfectly within their rights to behead Sophie Scholl. After all, God gave us free will, and if the Tiananmen Square protesters chose to stage a huge protest, invoking the wrath of the People's Liberation Army, well, tough on them, but what can we do? After all, the Chinese ruling body, in all its just love, gave its citizens the choice between being moral and loving and benefit... or being immoral rebels who reject the love of the State and have to suffer the consequences.

The punishing party, when choosing what deserves punishment and how severe said punishment shall be, automatically in my eyes takes on responsibility for how just his actions are. The punishing party can be the police, God, a parent, a teacher, a manager, doesn't matter. He chooses the punishment, he has to take responsibility for it and justify it when people complain. Saying "oh well, she broke the law, she has to deal with the consequences" is immoral as it voids the punishing party of any responsibility he has as the person putting the criminal in her situation. Given this philosophy, saying that God is right when He throws people in Hell is no more moral than saying that Kim Jong-il is right when he shoots people for trying to flee his country.

*ETA: I see there have been posts made while I was typing:
As far as christians understand it. You are correct. Unlike his other creations, God made man with freewill. freewill is what permits man to have a choice to live without sin or with sin. If freewillSure as clockwork...

[Safe-Keeper]

As far as Stalinists understand it. You are correct. Stalin respects his citizens' freewill. freewill is what permits Soviet citizens to have a choice to live without crime or with crime. If freewill is part of our humanity, then it is logical to expect that upon committing a crime we no longer deserve our freewill as we lose our freedom. If we lose our freewill, we lose the ability to follow Stalin willingly. It is that willingness to go to Stalin which provides us the path back.

But it is merciful to have opened the path in the first place. Prior to the Russian Revolution, there was no opportunity to be free. All the workers were slaves.
The fact that Stalin opened it up and doesn't just throw everyone in gulags at birth makes him merciful.
The fact that he gives everyone the same opportunity makes him just.

Yay:D!

[articulett]

Yes, especially if he's omniscient and knows how it's all going to end up... it would have been better to terminate the life as an abortion or never to have let it be conceived. Having never experienced consciousness is much better than experiencing an eternally tormented one. How could any one dream up that evil and what would the point be?? The choices one makes are based on ones preferences, temptations, opportunities, brain structure, environment-- there's so much that goes into it that is beyond our control... I'm not even sure you can control what you do or don't believe or who you do and don't love-- so to have some nebulous rubric involving these things in which failure is eternal punishment is just so.... disturbingly evil.

What is there to worship in such an entity? Or do you worship because you fear what will happen if you don't? And is that really "worship"??

[RandFan]

As far as christians understand it. You are correct. Unlike his other creations, God made man with freewill. freewill is what permits man to have a choice to live without sin or with sin. If freewill is part of our humanity, then it is logical to expect that upon our death we lose our freewill as we lose our life.Why? This is just an arbitrary delineation without any basis.

If we lose our freewill, we lose the ability to go to god willingly. It is that willingness to go to god which provides us the path back. If you are put in jail you lose your free will but a merciful jailer could release you at some point.

But it is merciful to have opened the path in the first place. Prior to that, there was no opportunity to enter heaven. Is it merciful to create something that will suffer for time and all eternity? I find that a bizarre definition of merciful. a.) I wouldn't create people if I knew even one of them would suffer for time and all eternity. b.) If I were a just, merciful, omnipotent being I would come up with a better plan.

[RandFan]

But that blood sacrifice only works when you accept it willingly.Why? And why can't we accept it willingly after we die?

After I die isn't god willing to spare me eternal torment?
After I die isn't god capable of sparing me eternal torment?

[Safe-Keeper]

Oh, and a big self-contradiction: if free will is such a precious thing, why are Christians so eager to go to Heaven, where there is no free will? I ask why God permits rape and murder in the world. The apologists voids God of responsibility (wow, never saw that coming:rolleyes:!), saying that we have free will and that it's either 100% free will to do anything we want or life as a mindless drone.

Then... why do you want to go to Heaven? In your eyes, the only way there can be no rape in Paradise is if you have your free will snipped upon arrival, which in your eyes means a nightmarish existence. And before you answer that oh, he can snip some free will and just take away our ability to rape, then, um... that was my point all along - he could have done that on Earth.

[articulett]

I can't think of anything anyone's kid could that would make a parent want to torment a kid for the rest of their earthly life. And if I knew of such a parent, I would feel revulsion towards them no matter how "bad" the kid. Surely the parent would have some responsibility in how the kid turned out and would not want the kid to be ever tormented. It hurts me just to think of such a thing! What parent doesn't hurt when their kid hurts or has learned some lesson the hard way?

Eternity?! For a finite crime?

[articulett]

Oh, and a big self-contradiction: if free will is such a precious thing, why are Christians so eager to go to Heaven, where there is no free will? I ask why God permits rape and murder in the world. The apologists voids God of responsibility (wow, never saw that coming:rolleyes:!), saying that we have free will and that it's either 100% free will to do anything we want or life as a mindless drone.

Then... why do you want to go to Heaven? In your eyes, the only way there can be no rape in Paradise is if you have your free will snipped upon arrival, which in your eyes means a nightmarish existence. And before you answer that oh, he can snip some free will and just take away our ability to rape, then, um... that was my point all along - he could have done that on Earth.

I think in Christian heaven you lack the necessary equipment to rape... but Muslim heaven....


Of course I can't imagine feeling, thinking, or desiring anything without a brain or sensory input from a body...

[RandFan]

Yes, especially if he's omniscient and knows how it's all going to end up... it would have been better to terminate the life as an abortion or never to have let it be conceived. Having never experienced consciousness is much better than experiencing an eternally tormented one. How could any one dream up that evil and what would the point be?? The choices one makes are based on ones preferences, temptations, opportunities, brain structure, environment-- there's so much that goes into it that is beyond our control... I'm not even sure you can control what you do or don't believe or who you do and don't love-- so to have some nebulous rubric involving these things in which failure is eternal punishment is just so.... disturbingly evil.

What is there to worship in such an entity? Or do you worship because you fear what will happen if you don't? And is that really "worship"??It reminds me a bit of Jerome Bixby's, "It's a Good Life" (Twilight Zone). It's a story abut a kid that can read minds and sends people to the cornfield (hell). Everyone acts counter to their own true nature out of fear of displeasing young Anthony.

It's A Good Life (http://www.lucifera-shadow.com/inanna_cornfield.html)
Bill Soames almost cringed. His eyes pleaded with her. He shook his head violently no, and then interrupted his mumbling again, though obviously he didn't want to: "Oh, don't say that, Miss Amy ... it's fine, just fine. A real good day!"

[articulett]

Was that a Twilight Zone? I always thought it was an Alfred Hitchcock...

Was the kid Billy Mummy-- the kid wishing people to the cornfield. Every once in a while when I have a trying student, I wish I could wish them to the cornfield...

[RandFan]

Was that a Twilight Zone? I always thought it was an Alfred Hitchcock...

Was the kid Billy Mummy-- the kid wishing people to the cornfield. Every once in a while when I have a trying student, I wish I could wish them to the cornfield...
Yep! TV Show (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734580/) and Movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086491/) (episode 3). And yes it was Billy Mummy in the TV show. Billy Mummy was in the movie but only as a dinner patron. He did star in Alfred Hitchcock presents at least once.

[joobz]

As far as Stalinists understand it. You are correct. Stalin respects his citizens' freewill. freewill is what permits Soviet citizens to have a choice to live without crime or with crime. If freewill is part of our humanity, then it is logical to expect that upon committing a crime we no longer deserve our freewill as we lose our freedom. If we lose our freewill, we lose the ability to follow Stalin willingly. It is that willingness to go to Stalin which provides us the path back.

But it is merciful to have opened the path in the first place. Prior to the Russian Revolution, there was no opportunity to be free. All the workers were slaves.
The fact that Stalin opened it up and doesn't just throw everyone in gulags at birth makes him merciful.
The fact that he gives everyone the same opportunity makes him just.

Yay:D!
And to a Stalinist, being in communism is heaven. Being outside his rule is hell.

Of course, all of this begs the question, do you want to be in the prescence of stalin.
Do you want to be in the presence of god of the bible?

[AkuManiMani]

And to a Stalinist, being in communism is heaven. Being outside his rule is hell.

Of course, all of this begs the question, do you want to be in the prescence of stalin.
Do you want to be in the presence of god of the bible?

Does it really make a difference? They both have the same love and compassion for all mankind.

[Safe-Keeper]

And as a non-Stalinist living in Stalin's Russia?

Sophie Scholl didn't want Hitler's love. She didn't want to be in his presence. She resented his rule.
What about her? Did she deserve her punishment for exercising her free will in a way that went against the intents and love of her ruler?

[arthwollipot]

Well, as far as I know, the concept of hell as a mideval dungeon is a latecomer to the christian faith. Hell is seperation from god, and the idea of being seperated from god is supposed to be the torture. The point is that the torture may not be obvious to those experiencing it.I've heard this interpretation, but it does seem to me to contradict the Bible.

Although I'm having another look at Revelation now, and it says that the Beast and the false Prophet, and those who worshipped him would be cast into the lake of fire burning with brimstone (Rev 19:20). Then a little later on, the devil who deceived the nations is cast into the lake where the Beast and the prophet were cast, where he shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever (Rev 20:10).

Then it gets interesting:

20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

So it seems to me that all of the dead are brought back from hell, and cast into the Lake of Fire - which is a separate thing - where they join the Beast, the Prophet and Satan in their day-night torment for ever and ever.

It seems to me a bit of a strain on the interpretation of the Lake of Fire which burns with brimstone (sulphur) to say that it is merely a metaphor for being separated from God. I would suggest also that the idea of hell (or rather, the Lake of Fire, which as I said is separate) is a much older concept than the separation theory. We hear of fire-and-brimstone sermons going back centuries.

Here's my theory. The most straightforward reading of Revelation suggests that all sinners and all those who receive the mark of the Beast, and all fornicators, liars and thieves will be cast into the Lake of Fire, there to experience torment day and night for ever and ever. This was the commonplace interpretation, and the one used by the clergy, for centuries, until some people started to realise how absurd it was. Christian theologians then came up with the far more mild-sounding separation interpretation, which is much more touchy-feely and not so indicative of a murderous, vengeful God.

I would be interested to know when the earliest theological references for the separation interpretation date from.

[Christian Dude]

Christian Dude,
you keep insisting that this revelation by the holy spirit is what is needed to see the truth, and you said previously that this revelation amounts to... The phrase "impossible to deny" means to me that denial leads to a logical contradiction. In other words, you are basically saying that the holy spirit has inspired logical understanding of the truth in your mind. Yet at the same time you give us 100% freedom to disagree, as if we're discussing matters of opinion. We are not; we are, by definition, discussing matters of objectively verifiable truth, because we would like to know how one can be objectively certain that Christianity, and not voodoo, is the right religion.
But of course the truth that was inspired was not about objective things: That is, it is a moral truth.
But you try to convince us not by showing us the undeniable reasoning behind the reality of sin, but by quoting bible verses about worldly happenings. The thing is, the truth of the bible is one of the very issues we are discussing here. For instance, you said:
You must believe that books like the book of Mormon and the Qur'an are made up, right? Let's say that someone making up such a book were to include prophesies after the fact, precisely to increase the convincingness of the books. Do you think that this kind of deception is beyond man? If so, do you think it would be beyond someone like Satan?

Basically, you are asking us here to choose between
believing that people writing and translating holy books over thousands of years have abused the inherent authority of these texts, like they have ostensibly done with all the holy texts that do not belong to the Bible, or...
believing that the Bible contains the God given truth, preserved over thousands of years, copies, and translations, unlike all the other ancient holy texts.

Not only that, you're putting it as if the answer should be obvious to any sane person.

I honestly am interested in hearing why the truth of Christianity is undeniable to you, but what you've presented so far has only deepened my confusion and made me more curious.
So I'd like to ask you some questions again:

What is your understanding of sin?

What is the undeniable truth about the ubiquity of sin?

How do you know that the Bible, including prophecies, was not written down by frauds, or inspired by the Satan of another religion?

How do you know that your revelation of undeniable truth was not inspired by the Satan of another religion?

Edit: Please note, these are honest questions. I am not the Satan of any religion trying to lead you into doubt or sin.

H'ethetheth, I will do my best to answer all of your direct questions as well as provide Christian perspectives that should shed further light on the specific issues you bring up.

If you would allow me to take a little time to lay down some qualifications and clarifications to have clear definitions and perspectives for both of us to operate from. First, as we all know, there are many diverse doctrines and theological perspectives inside what could be called the “scope of Christianity”. It is my personal conclusion that the majority of what is called Christianity is counterfeit, especially in the western world. Here is my definition as to what true Christianity is:

1) The Almighty Creator God is the God of the Christian Bible that has revealed Himself to us in three persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All persons of the Trinity are co-equal and have existed together in this relationship for eternity. Although God has manifested Himself in three persons, He is still one being. The Triune God is holy, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. His key attributes, and the most critical in our relationship to Him, are that He is holy and perfect.

2) The Christian Bible canonized in the 3rd century, devoid of what are called the apocryphal books, is the inspired, infallible revelation, put in written form, to mankind from the Almighty Creator God. Only the original manuscripts created by the original authors are inspired and infallible. God has protected his written revelation over the centuries, and we have it almost perfectly preserved with absolutely no errors that effect any essential doctrine. Thus the Christian Bible is the primary source of knowledge about God and how we interact and relate to Him, and then by definition, it is the primary source of truth on any subject matter it touches upon. No new revelation will be given to mankind from God that would contradict or change any doctrine or teaching found in scripture. Without this high view of scripture, all doctrine and teaching found in scripture would be open for rejection and/or modification which would destroy the continuity and consistency of scripture. Note: canonization was nothing more than the Church officially recognizing, and putting into one book, what the Church, through the guidance, direction and confirmation of the Holy Spirit, had already accepted as the authoritative word of God for centuries.

3) The Church is nothing more than the collective body of believers in and disciples of Jesus Christ across the whole world no matter their ethnic or religious heritage. It is not any official organization, denomination or physical structure, nor is it governed by man as its final authority.

4) As revealed to us through scripture, all people, past, present and future, have a nature to sin and have sinned against our Holy Creator God thus putting us in a position of rebellion against Him. Because He is holy and perfect, He is forced to judge our sin which will cause eternal separation from Him in the place scripture describes as Hell. He has forestalled His judgment and had, because of His omniscience, conceived His plan for our salvation, our reconciliation to Him, before He created us. Our salvation is then realized by placing our faith and trust in that plan which is: Jesus Christ lived the perfect sinless life, died for our sins paying the penalty for our sins, then was physically resurrected and ascended to the Father, all in our place as our surrogate. Our salvation is not by any means of our doing anything of any kind to live perfectly, or to make up for our sin, to be acceptable to God and for Him then to save us from Hell. It is strictly our receiving, through His mercy and grace, His free gift of salvation found only in Jesus Christ and none other.

5) Having accepted all this as truth, and having received Christ’s salvation (being born again spiritually), we then live as followers of Christ’s teachings, disciples of Christ. The main teaching being to love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind, and then to love everyone else as ourselves, friend or enemy, and to humbly serve God and His creatures in love through the power of the Holy Spirit. We can not do this on our own, we still have a remnant of our sin nature left over until we step into eternity. It is only by the enabling and empowering of the Holy Spirit that we can make any progress at all to actually doing what God teaches us to do.

Although this definition is incomplete in many ways, it contains most of the essential concepts that I believe point out real Christians from counterfeit Christians. If anyone claiming to be a Christian significantly deviates, or denies any of the above statements as essentially correct and true, they are phonies in my opinion. I also believed I needed to define and clarify these concepts to be able to properly convey important points in my answers to your questions. I apologize if my answers do not adequately provide a satisfactory conclusion and resolution for your questions whether you agree or disagree. The best I can, I stay away from the metaphysical aspects of Christianity here on the JREF forum. It is impossible to do so completely since the metaphysical, the supernatural, is intrinsically tied to the Christian faith. I do hope you understand I am doing my best to communicate difficult and some what abstract metaphysical aspects to a Christian’s faith in Jesus Christ.

You have read me state several times, I can not, nor am I here to prove by argument that the Christian faith is the single correct belief system. Believe me, I would love to be able to present an argument that was so airtight and so full of facts that could be empirically tested that no one could deny it was true. But the reality of Christianity is that I can not do that. What I do attempt to do is provide reasonable answers to questions regarding the accuracy of bible, seemingly contradictory passages in the bible, and offer an over all logically defendable position on all areas of the Christian faith that I can. But as I stated above, the supernatural is intrinsically tied to the Christian faith. Christianity is all about Christ Jesus, the second person of the God Head, the God who stepped out of eternity to became a man so as to be able to redeem us. We exist in 4 to possibly 10 dimensional space time, He does not. Although He entered His space time physical universe, He has existed for eternity outside of our dimension. We can only test empirical evidence that exists inside our material universe, so that leaves us with the logical fact that we can not create experiments to test for the existence of a God that exists outside of our space time. Since that is the case, I can not prove to anyone He really exists, all I can do is show that the Christian faith is logical, reasonable and defendable from many many aspects. It is God Himself that has to prove to someone He exists. He has to do His supernatural work in someone’s life for that to happen.

When I say God has to do His supernatural work, I am not saying it is the same as what we would generally call a supernatural experience. I think what we would generally call a supernatural experience would be things like a person saying, they saw an angel or demon, they had a vision, God talked to them, things of that nature. While a supernatural work of God could contain things of that nature, it does not necessarily have to. In my experience, God’s supernatural work does not normally contain things like that. The supernatural work of God I am trying to describe is when God revels knowledge and truth to a person in such a way that it is undeniable, unrelenting, inescapable, clear and pure as uncontaminated water. My experience is usually that truth comes in a triplet the first time; He exists, He is the Triune God of the Christian Bible, and sin is real.

I can not answer the question as to when and why God does this for one person and not another because I am not able to understand the balance between our free will, to choose or reject God, and His sovereignty over all His creation. I do know, because it is in scripture, that He does not want even one of His sentient creatures, meaning humans and angels, to be lost to an eternity in Hell. It is clear, because some of both are lost to Hell that God does not always get what He wants, and that is because of His gift of free will to us. I also know, because of scripture, that we are not even able to, of our own volition, seek God out. It takes His pursuing us first before we can then respond to His active pursuit of us. The different ways God pursues us is endless, but I do know the most common way He pursues people is by using other people to speak His truth to them while the Holy Spirit confirms that what is being said is God’s truth.

Now to answer your direct questions. You asked “What is your understanding of sin?”

My understanding of sin comes from scripture because I need an absolute source for defining sin. If I do not have an absolute source, then my definition can become relative and change based on outside pressure from any number of sources. Since I am convinced that God exists, and that He has provided us with a fixed and authoritative source of information containing His definition of righteousness and moral perfection, along with clear definitions of immoral actions and behavior, I have an absolute authoritative and final source to base a definition of sin on. Any society can determine and define what immoral behavior is based on a consensus. That definition of what immoral behavior is also is relative because the consensus can change with trends and other sources of influence. A society can not define what sin is. The reason is that sin is a rebellious action directed against God. Sin is any action, and even thought, that is in direct contradiction to what God has defined as righteous and moral. Thus it is in direct rebellion to God Himself.

You asked, “What is the undeniable truth about the ubiquity of sin?”

Sin is not a force or entity that is ubiquitous throughout the world. You could say sin is ubiquitous in the sense that each and every person alive now, who lived in the past, or who will live in the future, has a nature to sin, and then will actualize that nature and sin. I can only offer a concept that could possible be considered evidence, that the Holy Spirit would have to confirm is truth, for the universal sin nature of all people of all time. Every single person ever, has lied, has been selfish, has desired things that are not theirs and they have no right to, has hated someone unjustly, has cheated in some way, has acted violently or desired to act violently against someone undeservingly. Scripture is clear that we are not more good than we are bad. It is crystal clear that our nature is to sin, and we know better because God built in a conscience to convict us of our sin when we commit acts of sin. Our conscience is there to let us know something is wrong and we need to deal with it somehow; ultimately being part of the factors that God uses to lead us to Christ.

You asked, “How do you know that the Bible, including prophecies, was not written down by frauds, or inspired by the Satan of another religion?”

Because the Bible is verifiable and accurate on every scientific subject it touches upon. It contains knowledge of the future that only a God that exists outside of our space time universe could know; and that is God’s biggest fingerprint that the Bible is His revealed truth and knowledge to us. It was written over a fifteen hundred year period, by at least forty different men, and is a consistent, cohesive work where every single detail is there for a reason that creates a continuity that can not be denied. Books that were written hundreds to thousands of years apart contain intricate details that are inextricably interwoven and fit together in perfect unity. It accurately defines the nature of mankind, and is the only book that does so. The overriding and overarching message of the book is a message of love and teaches love as the way to live. A sacrificial unselfish life of loving servant hood that amazingly unfolds as the most liberating life one can live. But, the Bible also explains, because of the remnants of the old sin nature in a born again believer, it is impossible to do in our own strength, we need the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to be able to even begin to do it in the smallest amounts. All other religions, inspired by Satan or not, say people can do it right if they just try hard enough and gut it out. The Bible says no, it is absolutely impossible for a person to do unless they are born again spiritually by the Holy Spirit of God, and that His Holy Spirit accomplishes these things Himself in a person by His power. The lie is that we are basically good and can do good on our own. All these reasons put together, plus the confirmation of the Holy Spirit Himself to a person, destroy any possibility the Bible is written by frauds or a deception from Satan.

Your last question was, “How do you know that your revelation of undeniable truth was not inspired by the Satan of another religion?”

It is that undeniable, unrelenting, inescapable, clear knowledge, that is not connected to any emotion or any amazing experience, that God exists, He is the Triune God of the Bible, and that my sin is real. Then knowing that once I have received the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, what God wants from me, and enables me to begin to do through the power of His Holy Spirit, is to live a life growing in love. Love for and to God first, and then love for and to all people, even my enemies, second. Love is the reason everything exists and the Almighty Creator God is the God of love first and foremost. What else could be true? That we are all just a cosmic accident and love is an invention of the human mind? For me personally, no other answer other than God as revealed through the Bible makes sense. I am sorry I can not get away from the supernatural. As I said, the supernatural and faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are inseparable. I hope I have not left you completely disappointed with my answers. I have done the best I know how to honestly and respectfully answer your questions and the associated thoughts that come with them. Thank you for taking the time to read my long reply and I hope I have raised some provocative concepts and thoughts that will be used by the Holy Spirit to lead you the the truth. Jesus said “If you are my disciples, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

To everyone here at JREF, I am coming into a very busy time and will not be back to the forum for some time. Please do not spend any time writing any direct questions to me since I will not see them or reply. If I am not able to come back sooner, I hope all of you have a wonderful holiday season and are able to spend many happy hours with loved ones. God bless you all, Happy Thanksgiving, Happy Hanukah and Merry Christmas,
CD

[H'ethetheth]

I'll need some time to take it all in, so thanks for taking the time, Christian Dude. It will certainly help in understanding your thoughts on the matter, but I can tell you already that I'm pretty sure that I'm not intellectually satisfied with the last two answers.

What I see there is this:
H'ethetheth: "How do you know that the apparent accuracy of the bible is not forgery? "
Christian Dude: "Because it's accurate."
H'ethetheth: "How do you know God, not Satan, revealed this to you?"
Christian Dude: "Because it's undeniable knowledge that God exists."

That's begging the question so badly, I'm not sure where to begin.
It's a shame this thread will probably sink into oblivion now. I have learned some things though. I have learned that I will never believe as you do, Christian dude, because the thought process required to hold these beliefs are unacceptable to my mind. I simply cannot think these things and conclude rationally that they are true. Any revelation would have to be a rational one; a revelation of rational understanding of God. In my case, that would also imply that I would be able to explain God rationally. Seeing how no man in history has succeeded in this, I am sure this kind of revelation will not happen to me.
I want to thank you again for the thought you put into your posts and for giving me a few glimpses in the diversity of human thought. I can honestly say that your thoughts are completely alien to me.
Nevertheless: Enjoy the holidays, and have a happy new year.

[Paulhoff]

You asked, “How do you know that the Bible, including prophecies, was not written down by frauds, or inspired by the Satan of another religion?”

Because the Bible is verifiable and accurate on every scientific subject it touches upon. It contains knowledge of the future that only a God that exists outside of our space time universe could know ones.
What science in the bible, that the Earth is the center of the universe, that it does not move, that everything moves around the Earth. That lightening, Earthquakes, floods, decease, plagues etc are caused by a very sweet loveable so-called god, oh please.

And has for the future, every damn generations has said this, the wording is so loose you can drive any BS you want thru it.

And the father, son and holy ghost BS being just one so-called god. That only shows again, makes something strange, and the stranger the better, and people lap it up like there is no tomorrow.

Paul


:) :) :)

[Moochie]

Well, it's my experience that people who are tetched touched by the "Holy Spirit" often come to their senses eventually; that is, it wears off. So there's hope for CD yet.


M.

[Ladewig]

First off, thanks for the comprehensive response

A society can not define what sin is. The reason is that sin is a rebellious action directed against God. Sin is any action, and even thought, that is in direct contradiction to what God has defined as righteous and moral. Thus it is in direct rebellion to God Himself.



Is slavery a sin? If so, was it always a sin?

Is it a sin to charge interest on lent money?



. . . . . . . .
If I may ask a question that came up in another thread. Kurious Kathy said that natural disasters such as wildfires and earthquakes in California are an example of God punishing the wicked. Do you agree?

[RandFan]

Do you want to be in the presence of god of the bible?That's a great question. Why would anyone want to be in the presence of god? Why is it so special and what does seperation so bad?

[RandFan]

Because the Bible is verifiable and accurate on every scientific subject it touches upon. "Verifiable"? As for scientific subjects, it's amazing that god took so much pain to tell people what kinds of food to eat but didn't bother telling them about germs. Your view is not parsimonious.

[Silentknight]

2) The Christian Bible canonized in the 3rd century, devoid of what are called the apocryphal books, is the inspired, infallible revelation, put in written form, to mankind from the Almighty Creator God. Only the original manuscripts created by the original authors are inspired and infallible.
The problem is that humans wrote the Bible and humans are fallible creatures. This, unfortunately, impacts the validity of everything else you just said.

You have read me state several times, I can not, nor am I here to prove by argument that the Christian faith is the single correct belief system. Believe me, I would love to be able to present an argument that was so airtight and so full of facts that could be empirically tested that no one could deny it was true. But the reality of Christianity is that I can not do that.
This is something I can agree with. There are some Christians who have a lot of trouble admitting this.

Sin is any action, and even thought, that is in direct contradiction to what God has defined as righteous and moral. Thus it is in direct rebellion to God Himself.
I hope you realize that you just described thought crimes as punishable offenses.

Because the Bible is verifiable and accurate on every scientific subject it touches upon.
If that were the case then the Bible would have at least included some simple mathematical concepts that would still be applicable today. This was not the case. When taken at face value, the Bible fails biology forever and offers little practical insight into astronomy or medicine, all of which are fields people have claimed it to be an authority on.

To everyone here at JREF, I am coming into a very busy time and will not be back to the forum for some time. Please do not spend any time writing any direct questions to me since I will not see them or reply. If I am not able to come back sooner, I hope all of you have a wonderful holiday season and are able to spend many happy hours with loved ones. God bless you all, Happy Thanksgiving, Happy Hanukah and Merry Christmas,
CD
Happy Christmannukwaanzaturnalia to you too. ;)

[Ryan O'Dine]

This is terrible timing on my part, and I apologize to Christian Dude for criticizing him when he’s not around to respond (and to everyone else for the following rant), but having skimmed this thread, I have to speak my mind.

I think both CD and his wife Kurious_Kathy have participated on the JREF for one reason, and one reason alone -- to “glorify” their own souls. That is, they’re here for purely selfish reasons.

If they were interested in converting nonbelievers on the JREF, or just encouraging us to think more favorably about religion, they’ve gone about it in the worst possible ways. I'd wager more people have lost respect in Christianity from reading their posts than gained respect.

If they were interested in us and not themselves, they would have first striven mightily to understand their audience. They don't appear to have done so at all.

Understanding their audience a little, they would have attempted to speak to it in its own language. They’ve done much the opposite, using language and arguments which anyone even glancingly familiar with skepticism/critical thinking would have avoided or minimized.

Their appeals to “I can only tell you what I know, the rest is up to you and God,” is an excuse to laziness. It’s an excuse to avoid the effort it would take to really reach our hearts and minds.

There have been believers -- and nonbelievers playing Devil’s Advocate -- who’ve posted on this forum explaining religion in ways that have made me think more deeply about it. They knew their audience, they spoke its language.

At best, I’d say CD and KK have been profoundly lazy about their task of spreading “The Good News.” At worst -- and cynic that I am, I think most likely -- they’re simply here to further ensure their own spot in the Great Beyond.

Again, I feel a dirty for posting this after they’ve left, and I apologize for that. Hopefully when they return, we can take up these issues again.

[blobru]

...But mass hallucination -- seeing something that does not fit the real world at all -- is actually the best explanation for a miracle in this situation. They could certainly argue that God planted the vision of the sun jumping in the sky into the minds of 70,000 people for his own glory -- that could certainly be seen as a miracle.

As to illusion -- something really happened, but it was misinterpreted -- we've all encountered that (just stick a pencil in water). Visual illusion (false interpretation of actual sensory information) accompanied by the delusion (false belief) that this represents the glory of God is, of course, our interpretation of what occurred.

What no one can argue is that the people saw literally what occurred to the sun for all observers because (1) not everyone at Fatima saw the same thing (some of the reports are quite divergent), and (2) the result of the sun jumping in the sky and falling from the sky would necessarily mean that the sun or the earth moved against the laws of physics, yet no one else in the world experienced this change in the laws of physics. ...


I'm a fortnight & change late with this, but the Fatima references reminded me of a current spate of sun miracles in Medjugore, Bosnia-Hercegovina, claimed to be the work of the Virgin Mary. It's interesting that many witnesses say that what they see is identical to or even surpasses the accounts they have read of Fatima. It's also interesting that thanks to youtube we have access to video records of these purported miracles.

Several testimonials (http://www.china-buy.com/medjugorje-testimonies-miracles.cfm) of the miracles of the sun at Medjugorje (one woman likens it to accounts of Fatima's spinning sun)...

and lots of videos:

And verily the virgin's solar miracle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep_URgsX_QI) did appear unto Hernando, Hernando... Hernando! (Armando?)

God has the sun do a jig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGCRBrV0f2s) with a UFO (possibly the VM kicking up her heels).

Is that an atmospheric reflection, or the Virgin Mary's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrUcbJiyToU) ... (hey it's hot, she's in heat?)... let's go with atmospheric reflection.

What does a "spinning sun" look like according to believers? Like this, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT8-WufEkgg) apparently.

Or maybe this... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvOXOv-dGoE)

Or else this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk7OiO50eMM)?

Also this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRekP_UPx0Y). (sis: "can i borrow your glasses real quick? cause it's really hurting my eyes!")

There's a little black spot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlPHHl0AjZk) on the sun today (that's what happens when you point a digital camera at the sun you nitwits)

"O Thank you Jesus and Mary"... for making the sun hop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H00DESrdFCs) (as I film it obscured by tree branches; wonder if you'd get the same effect if you pointed the lens directly at a light bulb? Naa... couldn't be).

Sun / Virgin Mary goes nuts out the car window -- part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEvCY0Fm-co)

part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtWbEos8V4A) (still crazy mama; or on the virge... get it? verge... sorry [50 hail marys penance]).

part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af0soQ-uWB0) (VM does the hootchie-kootchie, shakes her money-maker).

I was surprised to find this: Pictures of the Fatima Miracle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBIs8cuIwTo): "The sun spun about itself like a ring of fireworks..." @ 4:30+ 2 pix!

Crowd gathers to see a miracle, similar to Fatima: blonde woman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z19GMlhB76g) [Mirjana?] a local seeress or somesuch.

Here she is again talking to God (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV6zsKZVk-8) or the Virgin I'm not sure on Lent (If I was her I think I'd swear off staring at the sun for a month).

Okay, apparently Mirjana has a vision at Medjugore every Mar 18 (beginning of Orthodox Lent), and receives a message (archive (http://members.tripod.com/~prodigalson/mirjana.html) past two decades).

Now although I'm neither a photographer nor meteorologist, all of these appear to me to be rather obvious camera or atmospheric effects. Illusion? Mass hallucination? Clearly, people come here expecting to see something, maybe desperate to see something. Staring at the sun isn't a routine pasttime, so anything out of the ordinary they see they have no context for; whether due to eye strain, optical illusion, screening objects, camera overload, or weather conditions, it will instead be attributed to the presence of the virgin; otherwise, the whole exercise is kind of a ridiculous waste of a time, and no one wants that; we crave adventure, novel experiences, stories to tell, reasons to believe; listening to some of the viewers narrate their 'extraordinary' apparitions, I'd say there's a good deal of self-deception at work here, confabulation, and conformity: no one wants to be the spoil sport to speak up with a rational explanation, when everyone is so keyed up to see something miraculous. Comparing accounts, I'd say what's happening at Medjugorje is likely a fair analog to what happened at Fatima, and the same explanations apply to both.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Cool. Thanks, blobru, excellent examples.