God is Love?

[Hibbyradge]

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20823531

[Hibbyradge]

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Steven Weinberg

[easty]

"religion...what a load of bollocks" Andy Easton 2012

[ancienthibby]

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20823531

In a world that has rejected and by-passed Marxism, you still cling on?? :aok:

[Hibbyradge]

In a world that has rejected and by-passed Marxism, you still cling on?? :aok:

Ha, no I'm not a Marxist, I never have been, but not everything he said was wrong.

I doubt anyone was wrong all the time. Even Satan.

However, in a world that increasingly rejects and by-passes the concept of religion, you still cling on?? :aok:

[ancienthibby]

Ha, no I'm not a Marxist, I never have been, but not everything he said was wrong.

I doubt anyone was wrong all the time. Even Satan.

However, in a world that increasingly rejects and by-passes the concept of religion, you still cling on?? :aok:

The divine God of Heaven became human in the Lord Jesus Christ who walked this Good Earth - and you still don't believe??:aok:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

When did that happen?

[twiceinathens]

The divine God of Heaven became human in the Lord Jesus Christ who walked this Good Earth - and you still don't believe??:aok:
As you(and yes many others) believe

[ancienthibby]

When did that happen?

Jesus existence is verified time and time again as in:

Richard Burridge (2004):

'There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know of any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore' (my emphasis).

And then:

James Dunn in 2007 says this:

the theories of the non-existence of Jesus are a thoroughly dead thesis (my emphasis).

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Oh well, must be true then.

[Eyrie]

God doesn't exist.

But if believing in a god helps people to achieve good things, or helps them to avoid causing harm, then I have no problem respecting their belief whilst at the same time being willing to challenge that belief or to use it as a source of humour like I do other beliefs (including my own).

The problem is though that both good and bad people sometimes do evil deeds in the name of their god, as in the original link.

[Twa Cairpets]

Jesus existence is verified time and time again as in:

Richard Burridge (2004):

'There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know of any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore' (my emphasis).

And then:

James Dunn in 2007 says this:

the theories of the non-existence of Jesus are a thoroughly dead thesis (my emphasis).

Quoting two biblical scholars attesting to their belief that other people believe that Jesus existed is not verification of that existence. It is simply an assertion of their position. It may well be the case that the majority of scholars are convinced of Jesus' existence, but at the same time it has to be noted that most biblical scholars are likely to be people of faith, and may be predisposed to a position of belief in his existence.

What is absolutely undeniable is that there are no corroborating, contemporary records of anything relating to Jesus' existence. There is no contemporary record of the miracles, or of the massacre of the children by Herod, or of the census that the bible claims was the reason for the journey to Bethlehem. You need to go to Jospehus and Tacitus to get a mention of Christ. There is reference in particular to Christians, but the existence of Christians doesn't mean the existence of Christ. I dare say you would not claim that because there were Norsemen that Odin exists, or that Vishnu is real because there are lots of Hindu's.

This lack of evidence is not, of course, proof Jesus was a church fabrication, but from my viewpoint, a man/messiah who did what he is claimed to have done would have left something of a greater impact with the people who were recording lots and lots of stuff at the time in the area.

Personally, I think there probably was a charismatic preacher around at the time, but I only have this conclusion because in order for any cult to be founded, there needs to be a founder. I don't see any reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Cheers TC, that saved me a lot of typing. ;-)

[stoneyburn hibs]

Quoting two biblical scholars attesting to their belief that other people believe that Jesus existed is not verification of that existence. It is simply an assertion of their position. It may well be the case that the majority of scholars are convinced of Jesus' existence, but at the same time it has to be noted that most biblical scholars are likely to be people of faith, and may be predisposed to a position of belief in his existence.

What is absolutely undeniable is that there are no corroborating, contemporary records of anything relating to Jesus' existence. There is no contemporary record of the miracles, or of the massacre of the children by Herod, or of the census that the bible claims was the reason for the journey to Bethlehem. You need to go to Jospehus and Tacitus to get a mention of Christ. There is reference in particular to Christians, but the existence of Christians doesn't mean the existence of Christ. I dare say you would not claim that because there were Norsemen that Odin exists, or that Vishnu is real because there are lots of Hindu's.

This lack of evidence is not, of course, proof Jesus was a church fabrication, but from my viewpoint, a man/messiah who did what he is claimed to have done would have left something of a greater impact with the people who were recording lots and lots of stuff at the time in the area.

Personally, I think there probably was a charismatic preacher around at the time, but I only have this conclusion because in order for any cult to be founded, there needs to be a founder. I don't see any reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

Thank God for that post :top marks

[twiceinathens]

The divine God of Heaven became human in the Lord Jesus Christ who walked this Good Earth - and you still don't believe??:aok:
As a matter of interest, having no personal religious conviction, and presuming that you believe in an afterlife and the existence of hell, do you assume that all who do not recognise the christian god are condemned? Sorry for wandering off the original post

[Hibrandenburg]

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Steven Weinberg

I really like that quote and will be stealing it (like you did).

[Hibbyradge]

I really like that quote and will be stealing it (like you did).

Why don't you just use it and credit the person who said it? As I did! :na na:

[Hibrandenburg]

Why don't you just use it and credit the person who said it? As I did! :na na:

Did that and never even mentioned you :ob

[Hibbyradge]

Did that and never even mentioned you :ob

I didn't say it. Steven Weinberg did.

I do hope you credited him. Like I did.

Or that really would be theft. 9165

[heretoday]

I envy people who have genuine faith and obtain inner peace through prayer. The older I get the more I feel drawn towards the church, probably because the order of service and the music are so familiar from my youth when I was forced to go against my will.

It's a comfort thing. Nothing wrong with that.

[Hibrandenburg]

I didn't say it. Steven Weinberg did.

I do hope you credited him. Like I did.

Or that really would be theft. 9165

Yep, I shamelessly stole it although at heart I think I'm a good person.....oh ****, does that mean I'm religious?

[Hibrandenburg]

I envy people who have genuine faith and obtain inner peace through prayer. The older I get the more I feel drawn towards the church, probably because the order of service and the music are so familiar from my youth when I was forced to go against my will.

It's a comfort thing. Nothing wrong with that.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[BEEJ]

I envy people who have genuine faith and obtain inner peace through prayer. The older I get the more I feel drawn towards the church, probably because the order of service and the music are so familiar from my youth when I was forced to go against my will.

It's a comfort thing. Nothing wrong with that.
No need to envy - discovering God is available to anyone who "seeks Him with all their heart" (Jeremiah 29: 13,14 and Deuteronomy 4:29). This point is so important, it's even mentioned twice (at least) in the Bible. :wink:

Note that it's the heart and not the intellect that is the primary means of finding God. We're given an intellect and the power of reason for good purpose; but it's not on it's own going to enable you to discover the God who loves you.

To all on here who are celebrating over the next few days the season of Christmas at which we received the gift of our saviour whom we have been given free will either to follow in life or not, I wish you all a peaceful and enjoyable time - and some good Hibs performances / scores thrown in for good measure!.

:flag::flag:

[ancienthibby]

Quoting two biblical scholars attesting to their belief that other people believe that Jesus existed is not verification of that existence. It is simply an assertion of their position. It may well be the case that the majority of scholars are convinced of Jesus' existence, but at the same time it has to be noted that most biblical scholars are likely to be people of faith, and may be predisposed to a position of belief in his existence.

What is absolutely undeniable is that there are no corroborating, contemporary records of anything relating to Jesus' existence. There is no contemporary record of the miracles, or of the massacre of the children by Herod, or of the census that the bible claims was the reason for the journey to Bethlehem. You need to go to Jospehus and Tacitus to get a mention of Christ. There is reference in particular to Christians, but the existence of Christians doesn't mean the existence of Christ. I dare say you would not claim that because there were Norsemen that Odin exists, or that Vishnu is real because there are lots of Hindu's.

This lack of evidence is not, of course, proof Jesus was a church fabrication, but from my viewpoint, a man/messiah who did what he is claimed to have done would have left something of a greater impact with the people who were recording lots and lots of stuff at the time in the area.

Personally, I think there probably was a charismatic preacher around at the time, but I only have this conclusion because in order for any cult to be founded, there needs to be a founder. I don't see any reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

Sadly, a typical response, TC. Rubbish learned scholars because they might have a pre-disposition to believe. Even a brief examination of the subject would show you these scholars come from all sorts of theological backgrounds.

Again, your 'absolutely undeniable' claim is out of kilter with modern Biblical scholarship where there is almost unanimous agreement on two key aspects of Jesus life on earth. First that he was baptised by John the Baptist and, second, that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

I hope He touches your life this Christmas. You'll know when He does.

Enjoy your Christmas!

[Peevemor]

Jesus existence is verified time and time again as in:

Richard Burridge (2004):

'There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know of any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore' (my emphasis).




"Hately - come into my box and I'll break your back!"

John Burridge 1991.

[twiceinathens]

Sadly, a typical response, TC. Rubbish learned scholars because they might have a pre-disposition to believe. Even a brief examination of the subject would show you these scholars come from all sorts of theological backgrounds.

Again, your 'absolutely undeniable' claim is out of kilter with modern Biblical scholarship where there is almost unanimous agreement on two key aspects of Jesus life on earth. First that he was baptised by John the Baptist and, second, that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

I hope He touches your life this Christmas. You'll know when He does.

Enjoy your Christmas!
And may I reciprocate your good wishes for the festive season. May I also say that I recognise the validity of your religious beliefs for you, and recognise that many of the social tenets outlined in the ten commandments for example are admirable. Faith is a positive human quality. I am also quite prepared to accept that Jesus well have existed, but a far as accepting that he embodied the Christian God is as baffling for me as it seems non belief in this as a simple statement of fact is for you. Do you regard anyone who has opposing views, say Dawkins, as learned or ignorant? Surely in the end all religions are ultimately dependant on faith in the existence of a deity.

[yeezus.]

I'm an atheist but culturally catholic. I don't believe in God but I no longer get as wound up as Hitchens and Dawkins do/did when faced with believers.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm an atheist but culturally catholic. I don't believe in God but I no longer get as wound up as Hitchens and Dawkins do when faced with believers.

Pretty much describes my make-up. Live and let live is my motto and I only get annoyed when "believers" try and hold me to their values.

I share some of the values of the religious but absolutely abhor many of them.

[yeezus.]

Pretty much describes my make-up. Live and let live is my motto and I only get annoyed when "believers" try and hold me to their values.

I share some of the values of the religious but absolutely abhor many of them.

:agree: I've found that most religious people don't tell me I'm going to hell for not believing in God (even if they are thinking that way).

[RyeSloan]

Sadly, a typical response, TC. Rubbish learned scholars because they might have a pre-disposition to believe. Even a brief examination of the subject would show you these scholars come from all sorts of theological backgrounds.

Again, your 'absolutely undeniable' claim is out of kilter with modern Biblical scholarship where there is almost unanimous agreement on two key aspects of Jesus life on earth. First that he was baptised by John the Baptist and, second, that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

I hope He touches your life this Christmas. You'll know when He does.

Enjoy your Christmas!


So the key aspects are he took part in some sort of ceremony and was killed.....must admit that's hardly proving many points Ancient and even TC admitted that Jesus could or did exist. It's what's been attached to that existance is the real issue here.

As another poster said I admire your faith but I certianly don't share it!

Enjoy your Christmas too :agree:

[ancienthibby]

So the key aspects are he took part in some sort of ceremony and was killed.....must admit that's hardly proving many points Ancient and even TC admitted that Jesus could or did exist. It's what's been attached to that existance is the real issue here.

As another poster said I admire your faith but I certianly don't share it!

Enjoy your Christmas too :agree:

To Mr Twice, Mr Stranraer, Mr Hiberlin and Mr Si-Mar, can I say thank you for courteous and kind responses and may I wish a fine and merry Christmas to you all and your families.

This is not a night for getting heavy, but as a response to Mr Twice (and all) I would say this - I hope you get some Christmas book tokens from a large on-line retailer with a base in Dunfermline!!

If so try and get these two readable paperbacks:

David Robertson: The Dawkins Letters; and

Gary Habermas: The Historical Jesus.

Both books are pretty cheap and with free postage (if you chose the right option).

Hope this thread goes on to the New Year!

Best to you all.
AH.
ps a thumping of Rossco on Wednesday will do wonders for all our spirits!

[RyeSloan]

To Mr Twice, Mr Stranraer, Mr Hiberlin and Mr Si-Mar, can I say thank you for courteous and kind responses and may I wish a fine and merry Christmas to you all and your families.

This is not a night for getting heavy, but as a response to Mr Twice (and all) I would say this - I hope you get some Christmas book tokens from a large on-line retailer with a base in Dunfermline!!

If so try and get these two readable paperbacks:

David Robertson: The Dawkins Letters; and

Gary Habermas: The Historical Jesus.

Both books are pretty cheap and with free postage (if you chose the right option).

Hope this thread goes on to the New Year!

Best to you all.
AH.
ps a thumping of Rossco on Wednesday will do wonders for all our spirits!

No probs Ancient...but just for the record the only spirits I believe in are alcoholic ones...not scary ones nor holy ones :greengrin :greengrin

Oh and with TC on board I'm sure this thread could run on for a while....one of his favourite subjects this I think. Maybe I should just buy him the books and we can look forward to an articulate and interesting reprise in the New Year!!

[Hibrandenburg]

To Mr Twice, Mr Stranraer, Mr Hiberlin and Mr Si-Mar, can I say thank you for courteous and kind responses and may I wish a fine and merry Christmas to you all and your families.

This is not a night for getting heavy, but as a response to Mr Twice (and all) I would say this - I hope you get some Christmas book tokens from a large on-line retailer with a base in Dunfermline!!

If so try and get these two readable paperbacks:

David Robertson: The Dawkins Letters; and

Gary Habermas: The Historical Jesus.

Both books are pretty cheap and with free postage (if you chose the right option).

Hope this thread goes on to the New Year!

Best to you all.
AH.
ps a thumping of Rossco on Wednesday will do wonders for all our spirits!

Best wishes to you and your's AH, if we could stretch the Christian Christmas values out over the whole year then I'm sure the world would be a better place for it. Merry Christmas.

[Hibrandenburg]

To Mr Twice, Mr Stranraer, Mr Hiberlin and Mr Si-Mar, can I say thank you for courteous and kind responses and may I wish a fine and merry Christmas to you all and your families.

This is not a night for getting heavy, but as a response to Mr Twice (and all) I would say this - I hope you get some Christmas book tokens from a large on-line retailer with a base in Dunfermline!!

If so try and get these two readable paperbacks:

David Robertson: The Dawkins Letters; and

Gary Habermas: The Historical Jesus.

Both books are pretty cheap and with free postage (if you chose the right option).

Hope this thread goes on to the New Year!

Best to you all.
AH.
ps a thumping of Rossco on Wednesday will do wonders for all our spirits!

Best wishes to you and your's AH, if we could stretch the Christian Christmas values out over the whole year then I'm sure the world would be a better place for it. Merry Christmas.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Timshel

[Twa Cairpets]

Sadly, a typical response, TC. Rubbish learned scholars because they might have a pre-disposition to believe. Even a brief examination of the subject would show you these scholars come from all sorts of theological backgrounds.

Again, your 'absolutely undeniable' claim is out of kilter with modern Biblical scholarship where there is almost unanimous agreement on two key aspects of Jesus life on earth. First that he was baptised by John the Baptist and, second, that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

I hope He touches your life this Christmas. You'll know when He does.

Enjoy your Christmas!

Sorry Ancient, this is a fundamentally inaccurate response to my post. I haven't rubbished anybody, and indeed specifically avoided doing so in my post. I made the assumption that I thought it likely that biblical scholars were more likely to be pre-disposed to believe in Jesus, which I think is a fair stance. I also suggested that it should at the least be taken into consideration when evaluating their works, which is also fair. Oh, and the two scholars you referenced are: Revd Professor Richard Burridge, Dean of King's College London and Professor of Biblical Interpretation, and James Dunn, Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at Durham University (retired). This would tend to disagree with your claim of a wide range of theological backgrounds.

Biblical scholars may well agree amongst themselves that the baptism and crucifixion happened. However, I state again, without any prejudice as to the ultimate accuracy or otherwise of their claims, that there is absolutely no contemporary, corroborative evidence for anything related to Jesus' life. The first extra-biblical references to Jesus are from Tacitus and Josephus. If I'm missing something by way of actual evidence, then please tell me - this isn't the stance of a godless atheist trying to score a point against Jesus , this is just a fact, and a fact that calls into question the historical accuracy of the biblical version of Jesus' life.

I also specifically stated that this lack of corroborating evidence does not constitute evidence against his existence, but is a factor in my doubting his divine historicity as recounted in the bible. If it's not an issue for you, then no problem, but don't misrepresent what I said. As SiMar mentioned, this is a particular interest of mine - I've read lot of biblical history and apologetics work, and from a historical perspective, the evidence is incredibly flimsy.

Have a good Christmas!

[heretoday]

I was christened C of E but the services I have attended recently have been very insipid. Beards and sandals stuff. The C of S seems better to me. More austere.

While not a believer I do like the comfort zone of the church and its music and intend to go regularly once I find a service that I like. I could be accused of seeing organised religion as entertainment of a kind, I suppose.

I guess I want some hellfire, "watch your step or you're for it" material delivered by a chap in a dog collar. Am I a Wee Free at heart? Or a Catholic?

[Pete]

I have no knowledge of the subject regarding evidence etc...and I can't say I have formed an opinion of whether god exists or not. I was brought up to believe but have gradually become less interested in the question. Even if it all did exist then it would only really matter once I was dead.

However, "finding god with your heart" and therefore knowing, not just believing there is an afterlife sounds a lot more appealing than the alternative.

I also think there's an element of embarrassment that stops people looking. I've heard people describe those who believe in god and go to church as fruitloops and nutters who can't be taken seriously. Maybe the rise in the amount of non-believers is putting people off, perhaps even myself if I'm being honest.

Also, if there is one god then why are there so many different religions? On another level, why are there so many forms of Christianity? Even if you believe in the concept then questions like this might put you off attending church regularly or truly finding god.
I was going to say that God doesn't exactly make it easy for you to find him...but maybe that's because the above questions are coming from the wrong place and therefore irrelevant. After all, you apparently don't find him using that place.

Maybe I'll try and make an effort when I'm older or my life takes a turn for the worst. However, I'd be really hacked off if I waited years, found god and realised I had been missing out all that time.:greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Interview with Dawkins.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33420.htm

[ancienthibby]

Sorry Ancient, this is a fundamentally inaccurate response to my post. I haven't rubbished anybody, and indeed specifically avoided doing so in my post. I made the assumption that I thought it likely that biblical scholars were more likely to be pre-disposed to believe in Jesus, which I think is a fair stance. I also suggested that it should at the least be taken into consideration when evaluating their works, which is also fair. Oh, and the two scholars you referenced are: Revd Professor Richard Burridge, Dean of King's College London and Professor of Biblical Interpretation, and James Dunn, Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at Durham University (retired). This would tend to disagree with your claim of a wide range of theological backgrounds.

Biblical scholars may well agree amongst themselves that the baptism and crucifixion happened. However, I state again, without any prejudice as to the ultimate accuracy or otherwise of their claims, that there is absolutely no contemporary, corroborative evidence for anything related to Jesus' life. The first extra-biblical references to Jesus are from Tacitus and Josephus. If I'm missing something by way of actual evidence, then please tell me - this isn't the stance of a godless atheist trying to score a point against Jesus , this is just a fact, and a fact that calls into question the historical accuracy of the biblical version of Jesus' life.

I also specifically stated that this lack of corroborating evidence does not constitute evidence against his existence, but is a factor in my doubting his divine historicity as recounted in the bible. If it's not an issue for you, then no problem, but don't misrepresent what I said. As SiMar mentioned, this is a particular interest of mine - I've read lot of biblical history and apologetics work, and from a historical perspective, the evidence is incredibly flimsy.

Have a good Christmas!

TC, one of the key fundamentals here is that Christianity is a faith-based religion, so bags of compelling empirical evidence is not part of the equation. Second, the Lord reveals enough of Himself in Scripture to, if you like, whet the appetite of seekers. Third, as I have said before in other threads, He is a personal God and will be found by those who seek after Him.

I am no theologian, but I am aware of any number of writers whose work you might find helpful. Two of the finest theologians of recent times are Richard Bauckham, most recently at University of St Andrews and Larry Hurtado of the University of Edinburgh. Both are widely respected New Testament scholars and you may well find some of their works illuminating.

Beyond that, I am constantly amazed at the number of working scientists who also proclaim their Christianity. You might be familiar with some, but I would certainly recommend the works of Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project; Alister McGrath, the molecular biologist; John Lennox, the mathematician; John Polkinthorne, the physicist. A surprising number of scientists who are also Christians started of as atheists. The famous atheist Antony Flew also converted to Christianity in the latter stages of his life!

Beyond that, there are a couple of gifted American preachers, namely Don Carson and Tim Keller, both of whom write eminently readable books and Carson in particular is a very fine expositor of the NT. And if you really want to find a prolific, compelling Christian apologist, try the works of Gary Habermas.

Good reading!

[Twa Cairpets]

TC, one of the key fundamentals here is that Christianity is a faith-based religion, so bags of compelling empirical evidence is not part of the equation. Second, the Lord reveals enough of Himself in Scripture to, if you like, whet the appetite of seekers. Third, as I have said before in other threads, He is a personal God and will be found by those who seek after Him.

I am no theologian, but I am aware of any number of writers whose work you might find helpful. Two of the finest theologians of recent times are Richard Bauckham, most recently at University of St Andrews and Larry Hurtado of the University of Edinburgh. Both are widely respected New Testament scholars and you may well find some of their works illuminating.

Beyond that, I am constantly amazed at the number of working scientists who also proclaim their Christianity. You might be familiar with some, but I would certainly recommend the works of Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project; Alister McGrath, the molecular biologist; John Lennox, the mathematician; John Polkinthorne, the physicist. A surprising number of scientists who are also Christians started of as atheists. The famous atheist Antony Flew also converted to Christianity in the latter stages of his life!

Beyond that, there are a couple of gifted American preachers, namely Don Carson and Tim Keller, both of whom write eminently readable books and Carson in particular is a very fine expositor of the NT. And if you really want to find a prolific, compelling Christian apologist, try the works of Gary Habermas.

Good reading!

I've no argument with you presenting your belief system as faith based.

I do have a serious argument with you saying, as per your first post "Jesus existence is verified time and time again.", and then going on to use as your justification the statements of biblical scholars. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't deliberately misrepresenting the truth of the situation, because the only verification of Jesus existence as portrayed in the bible comes from that faith.

Why would you suddenly be amazed at the number of scientists who have faith? Why have you suddenly pulled this out of the hat to try to justify your faith? Francis Collins is a deist sure, but so what? I'm sure there are hundreds or thosuands of religious people in senior scientific positions who are muslim or buddhist or hindu or shintoists - its got no relevance as to the truth or otherwise of your particular God, the historicity of Jesus or the validity of scientific discoveries and settled opinion in areas that would contradict biblical teaching. There's a lot of atheist scientists too. Presumably if list of a load of them then you'd accept that as an argument?

I've read and listened to McGrath. I have to say "The Dawkins Delusion", which I forced myself to read cover to cover, is one of the most turgidly whining pieces of apologetic writing I've read, and I've listened to William Lane Craig a lot so that's saying something.

[lyonhibs]

If Jesus isnae on Youtube, then I'm no havin' it!

:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

If Jesus isnae on Youtube, then I'm no havin' it!

:greengrin

Oh Jesus is on YouTube alright...

[Twa Cairpets]

TC, one of the key fundamentals here is that Christianity is a faith-based religion, so bags of compelling empirical evidence is not part of the equation. Second, the Lord reveals enough of Himself in Scripture to, if you like, whet the appetite of seekers. Third, as I have said before in other threads, He is a personal God and will be found by those who seek after Him.

I am no theologian, but I am aware of any number of writers whose work you might find helpful. Two of the finest theologians of recent times are Richard Bauckham, most recently at University of St Andrews and Larry Hurtado of the University of Edinburgh. Both are widely respected New Testament scholars and you may well find some of their works illuminating.

Beyond that, I am constantly amazed at the number of working scientists who also proclaim their Christianity. You might be familiar with some, but I would certainly recommend the works of Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project; Alister McGrath, the molecular biologist; John Lennox, the mathematician; John Polkinthorne, the physicist. A surprising number of scientists who are also Christians started of as atheists. The famous atheist Antony Flew also converted to Christianity in the latter stages of his life!

Beyond that, there are a couple of gifted American preachers, namely Don Carson and Tim Keller, both of whom write eminently readable books and Carson in particular is a very fine expositor of the NT. And if you really want to find a prolific, compelling Christian apologist, try the works of Gary Habermas.

Good reading!

Well, I've had a look at Carson and Keller, as I didn't know them. Admittedly, just their blogs and interviews, but it's the same old apologetics stuff. A bit less strident than somel, I'll grant you, but the same stuff nonetheless. The problem with looking at NT scholars and those (like Keller and Carson), who are evangelicals or at the least pastors, is that they have a literally presuppositionalist stance. They accept that God / Jesus are real and that the bible is the inspired word of God, and therefore they interpret the bible in this light. It is impossible therefore for them not to use the NT to justify its own accuracy, and at that point I lose interest I'm afraid.
"The bible is true!"
"How do you know its true?"
"Because it says so in the bible"

I think both testaments of the bible and other holy books are worthy of study - the impact on humanity and the width of interpretations that can be reached is vital in understanding both history and motivations of those with faith, especially extreme or fundamentalist faith. However, no matter how deeply you study the scripture, it can only be interpreted within its own self-affirming story, unless you accept the presuppositionalist position. if you go back to the OP, understanding religiously driven motivation for extreme appalling behaviour is vital.

This is where there is a difference between, as we've been over before, faith and evidence. You have faith, and believe it to come from a personal relationship with God. I suggest that there is no evidence for your stance to be correct (indeed, that there is a mountain of evidence to suggest, if not prove, that your position is actively wrong given the variety of deep convictions held by those of faith). Apologists work hard to present compelling evidence from the bible, but its just not possible if you view evidence as requiring to be being corroborated, impartial and of enough sufficient volume to be of worth.

This is one of the reasons why I am surprised and a bit disappointed you chose to go down the route of "well scientists believe in God too". It reads as if you are suggesting this is evidence of Gods existence. It's not.

[PeeJay]

This is one of the reasons why I am surprised and a bit disappointed you chose to go down the route of "well scientists believe in God too". It reads as if you are suggesting this is evidence of Gods existence. It's not.

Is it perhaps not the case that many scientists believe in (a) God because (particularly in the US) funding for projects or indeed career opportunities often seems go hand in hand with a required belief in God, not to mention a perceived need to acquiesce to certain societal peer pressure to simply keep out of "trouble" or on good terms with the neighbours?

[Twa Cairpets]

Is it perhaps not the case that many scientists believe in (a) God because (particularly in the US) funding for projects or indeed career opportunities often seems go hand in hand with a required belief in God, not to mention a perceived need to acquiesce to certain societal peer pressure to simply keep out of "trouble" or on good terms with the neighbours?

Interestingly, you would find the fundamentalists in the US use the exact same argument in reverse. If you ever have a burning desire to lose 90 minutes of your life that you'll never get back and leave you going "What the F***", watch "Expelled - No Intelligence Required" which is Ben Stein claiming that researchers are being hounded out of academia because of the liberal/atheist agenda.

[ancienthibby]

I've no argument with you presenting your belief system as faith based.

I do have a serious argument with you saying, as per your first post "Jesus existence is verified time and time again.", and then going on to use as your justification the statements of biblical scholars. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't deliberately misrepresenting the truth of the situation, because the only verification of Jesus existence as portrayed in the bible comes from that faith.

Why would you suddenly be amazed at the number of scientists who have faith? Why have you suddenly pulled this out of the hat to try to justify your faith? Francis Collins is a deist sure, but so what? I'm sure there are hundreds or thosuands of religious people in senior scientific positions who are muslim or buddhist or hindu or shintoists - its got no relevance as to the truth or otherwise of your particular God, the historicity of Jesus or the validity of scientific discoveries and settled opinion in areas that would contradict biblical teaching. There's a lot of atheist scientists too. Presumably if list of a load of them then you'd accept that as an argument?

I've read and listened to McGrath. I have to say "The Dawkins Delusion", which I forced myself to read cover to cover, is one of the most turgidly whining pieces of apologetic writing I've read, and I've listened to William Lane Craig a lot so that's saying something.

Well, that's a less tetchy response than the last one!

I was only trying to help you, TC! Trying to direct you to other scholars/thinkers etc, who might not fall foul of your mantra that 'it's in the Bible, so I must dismiss it'. I am well aware of your thinking in this regard and this is why I tried to direct you to scholars who study 'outside of the Bible' if you like.

That's why I referenced Bauckham and Hurtado who both have done substantial work in sources outside of the Bible and who make the case for the authenticity of Jesus from local, traditional, language, other sources, etc. In this respect Bauckham is particularly strong.

Likewise the comment about scientists. I thought it might help you first, to narrow the focus, as with Bauckham and Hurtado, who are 'source scholars' outwith the remit of the NT alone, and then broaden the focus to suggest you look at some scientific scholars who find no contradiction with their Christian belief and who continue to write on the continuing dialogue between the two.

I chose Francis Collins because he moved from being an atheist to a theist. And the philosopher Antony Flew for the same reason.

I chose the other scientists, mostly because they are UK based and easily accessible. Most are linked to the Faraday Institute and will publish in the journal 'Science and Christian Belief' from time to time. Internet access is available for every name quoted.

I repeat, do enjoy some good reading!

[The Green Goblin]

That's why I referenced Bauckham and Hurtado who both have done substantial work in sources outside of the Bible and who make the case for the authenticity of Jesus from local, traditional, language, other sources, etc. !

The Tank is a Biblical scholar?!

[ancienthibby]

The Tank is a Biblical scholar?!

Aye! 'God works in mysterious ways His purposes to fulfil', eh!?

[hibsbollah]

The Tank is a Biblical scholar?!

I don't know about Hurtado, but for his role in gettingintousintoeurope.com, Konte was definitely The Redeemer:agree:

Gary O'Connor has to be John the Baptist because of his trouble with the authorities:tsk tsk:

Paul seemed to have an interest in the Brian Kerr enigma "We should look not at things that are seen, but the things that are not seen' (Corinthians).

there must be more sacreligious analogies out there:aok:

[Twa Cairpets]

Well, that's a less tetchy response than the last one!

I was only trying to help you, TC! Trying to direct you to other scholars/thinkers etc, who might not fall foul of your mantra that 'it's in the Bible, so I must dismiss it'. I am well aware of your thinking in this regard and this is why I tried to direct you to scholars who study 'outside of the Bible' if you like.

That's why I referenced Bauckham and Hurtado who both have done substantial work in sources outside of the Bible and who make the case for the authenticity of Jesus from local, traditional, language, other sources, etc. In this respect Bauckham is particularly strong.

Likewise the comment about scientists. I thought it might help you first, to narrow the focus, as with Bauckham and Hurtado, who are 'source scholars' outwith the remit of the NT alone, and then broaden the focus to suggest you look at some scientific scholars who find no contradiction with their Christian belief and who continue to write on the continuing dialogue between the two.

I chose Francis Collins because he moved from being an atheist to a theist. And the philosopher Antony Flew for the same reason.

I chose the other scientists, mostly because they are UK based and easily accessible. Most are linked to the Faraday Institute and will publish in the journal 'Science and Christian Belief' from time to time. Internet access is available for every name quoted.

I repeat, do enjoy some good reading!

Tetchy? Maybe. I don't like being deliberately misrepresented about what I post, so you'll maybe forgive my apparent tetchiness when I point out that I have at no point said "It's in the bible, so I must dismiss it". It is absolutely not my "mantra", and if that's what you think it is then you have a preconception that is clouding your interpretative skills. I don't believe the bible is what it is claimed to be - I dont believe it to be the inspired word of God, I don't believe Jesus was son of God, I don't believe the Genesis account of creation, I don't believe in the Flood, i don't believe in the concept of damnation or original sin, I dont believe in the resurrection, I dont believe any of the prophecies have any extra-biblical relevance, i dont believe in the Exodus, I dont believe Revelation is anything but a drug-inspired dream, I don't belive in the virgin birth, I dont believe in a historical Moses, or a whole lot of other stuff in the bible. However, I absolutely, fundamentally dont believe that anythign should be instantly dismissed solely because it is in the bible. If there's no evidence to back up the supernatural claims, then for sure the burden of evidence rests with the believer to back it up, bu tin the same way an alien abduction claim shouldn't be dismissed just because its by a redneck hillbilly, until there is some corroboration then I'll remain sketically unconvinced

Your scholarly references are still basing their study on a non-evidenced presuppostion. From what I have read of Bauckham (not read the book, admittedly), the core of his argument is that the gospels are the the recorded word of eyewitnesses, therefore are valid evidence in themselves. This may be true - I don't know - but there is no independent evidence to support this. None. It comes down again to faith. The second you accept assumption about the veracity of the bible, then it makes more sense because it is, in part, self affirming (or at least can be interpreted to be so).

For every Francis Collins there's a Bart D. Ehrmann or Matt Dillahunty who've left the faith, so again you (a) assume that I haven't looked at the thoughts and positions of Flew and Collins, which I have, and (b) that the fact they have personal belief in any way impacts the truth of the matter.

But, going back to the nub of the matter from your original post (and my original gripe).
There is no extra biblical evidence for Jesus, his miracles, his divinty or his life.

[Phil D. Rolls]

As to the book called the bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions and a history of bad times and bad men. [Thomas Paine, writing to Andrew Dean August 15, 1806]


or as God himself kind of says in the Acid House "ah created yis wi a free will, it's youse chunts that keep daein aw the evil n blamin it oan me".

[lyonhibs]

or as God himself kind of says in the Acid House "ah created yis wi a free will, it's youse chunts that keep daein aw the evil n blamin it oan me".

Sauzee was in Acid House????? :confused:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sauzee was in Acid House????? :confused:

If you believe he was, then he was. It's beyond question.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Ach ... I've yet to hear a decent argument against the existence of a higher power.

Anyway ... If it is the case that us and everything that we can prove exists are the result of a random series of events and we have no other function than to spend 4 score years and 10 polluting the Earth and then becoming fertilizer at the end of it, then all I can say is .... what a bloody pointless waste of time.

If I'm wrong and the athiests are right they can say I told you so the second I snuff it. :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Ach ... I've yet to hear a decent argument against the existence of a higher power.

Anyway ... If it is the case that us and everything that we can prove exists are the result of a random series of events and we have no other function than to spend 4 score years and 10 polluting the Earth and then becoming fertilizer at the end of it, then all I can say is .... what a bloody pointless waste of time.

If I'm wrong and the atheists are right they can say I told you so the second I snuff it. :greengrin

Interesting. Genuine question: What would constitute a decent argument against the existence of a higher power? For me, if there was any evidence of a creator or higher deity not based solely on a requirement for me to have unconditional faith, I would absolutely accept it. Something supernatural, something genuinely miraculous - the regrowing of an amputees leg or the creation of species or the instant making of, say, the Sahara into a fertile environment would be the kind of thing. I'm not being smart and I know the argument against this - "don't challenge God to prove himself, you need to know him in your heart etc". But as the Bible is meant to be our instruction manual, it clearly isn't working as such for the majority of humanity - a genuinely indisputable sign of divine power would work for me. Sadly, we know this wont happen, because (a) if you're an atheist you don't believe in any God, or (b) if you're a christian you know that this has not been foretold, and that the end of the world will be as described in Revelation. i' don't know enough about other religions to comment on their reasons for the lack of divine display of awe, but I'm guessing they are, at root, similar.

I believe there is no afterlife, but for me this just means the opposite of your stance. Not "what a waste of time", but "what an opportunity to use the time we have to live life well and full". Do you really want to spend eternity in heaven, and are you really happy at the thought that your religion (assuming you are a relatively mainstream christian) actively believes that I am going to spend eternity in hell, torture and damnation?

[BEEJ]

Do you really want to spend eternity in heaven,
As heaven represents the eternal presence of God and hell is the eternal absence of God, I know where I'd rather be.


and are you really happy at the thought that your religion (assuming you are a relatively mainstream christian) actively believes that I am going to spend eternity in hell, torture and damnation?
Speaking for myself, 'not at all'; but it's not in my power to do anything about your eternal destiny. We have each been given the free will (as you would prefer) to make that choice for ourselves.

Your image of heaven resounding to the guffaws and chuckles of the 'saved' as they rejoice in the misfortune of those lost forever in hell is singularly inappropriate. It is only by God's grace that anyone gets to heaven; nothing of ourselves except to humbly receive that grace. Your image (mentioned on here before), with it's insinuation of a sense of superiority amongst Christian believers, only serves to further alienate you from any concept of a loving God.

[Twa Cairpets]

As heaven represents the eternal presence of God and hell is the eternal absence of God, I know where I'd rather be.
I obviously think you're offering up a false dichotomy, but the idea of eternity anywhere to me is pretty appalling.


Speaking for myself, 'not at all'; but it's not in my power to do anything about your eternal destiny. We have each been given the free will (as you would prefer) to make that choice for ourselves.

I would dispute that. I've read some interesting stuff on free will as it relates to religion recently, the nub of it is that it is at odds with an omniscient and omnipotent God, as described in the bible. If God created me, and if he is omniscient then he knew that I would choose not to believe in him, thereby leading to the conclusion that he created me to fail and suffer in an an eternity of hell (depending on how you interpret the bible, of course). If he didn't create me to fail, then he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, as he created me flawed.

I appreciate that my impending damnation doesn't sit well with you. I personally think it is morally repugnant to worship a being (albeit in my opinion a fictional one) that will, as an alleged sign of love, commit me, personally, to an eternal sentence for a very finite crime. Especially when this "crime" is predicated on the ability (or, more accurately, lack of ability) he created me with to believe in him.


Your image of heaven resounding to the guffaws and chuckles of the 'saved' as they rejoice in the misfortune of those lost forever in hell is singularly inappropriate. It is only by God's grace that anyone gets to heaven; nothing of ourselves except to humbly receive that grace. Your image (mentioned on here before), with it's insinuation of a sense of superiority amongst Christian believers, only serves to further alienate you from any concept of a loving God.

ancienthibby has often told me to "open my heart to Jesus", on the assumption that I have never considered this or tried it. I just cannot get to a point where I am willing to disregard everything I know to be true and accurate and evidenced to "just have faith" in Gods grace. To me that is an intellectual absurdity, but doubtless it would be "rationalised" by those of faith with me not believing enough or being open enough, so putting the fault on me, not their God.

So when people choose to belong to a group that considers me deserving of an infinity of suffering, based on this absurdity and given my earlier point about free-will, that does tick me off a bit. Whether or not it is interpreted as an "insinuation of superiority" is a moot point. I'm pretty confident that with the exception possibly of child rapists and genocidal dictators, there isn't anyone who deserves that because of their actions. I personally know nobody who I think deserves eternal torment. You, presumably do, assuming you have non-christian friends and family. I would have thought that in a very literal sense, that should distance anyone from the concept of a "loving" God.

Finally, I don't believe that heaven (if it existed) would resound to the "guffaws and chuckles of the saved". I would think it has to be viewed as a place where your memory is wiped clean and you live in a kind of SOMA induced bliss, otherwise the certain knowledge (what with you being in heaven) of beloved family and friends suffering in hell would be too sorrowing to bear for all eternity. How awful would that be?

[BEEJ]

Wishing you a good New Year, TC. I hope 2013 is a happy and healthy year for you and yours. :thumbsup:


I've read some interesting stuff on free will as it relates to religion recently, the nub of it is that it is at odds with an omniscient and omnipotent God, as described in the bible. If God created me, and if he is omniscient then he knew that I would choose not to believe in him, thereby leading to the conclusion that he created me to fail and suffer in an an eternity of hell (depending on how you interpret the bible, of course). If he didn't create me to fail, then he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, as he created me flawed.
God is the alpha and the omega and therefore knows the end from the beginning. He sits outside time as we understand it and has seen how things will pan out.

But in order to relate to us he deals in time as we do, in simple chronolgical order. The fact that God is omniscient and omnipotent does not mean that he interferes with our freewill. Your interpretation assumes that everything that we do, say and think has been pre-ordained and set out in detail in advance by this omnipotent God. That's just not the case. If you create beings for relationship and interaction, you don't then turn them into pre-programmed robots by predefining their every move and breath. That would be the exact opposite of us being able to exercise freewill.

And your accusation that you have been in some way created with hell as your destiny is quite wrong. You may (as many of us are) be very well predisposed to engage brain much more readily than your heart; but I doubt that you’re completely incapable on the latter score. Were you to be, as God’s created being, unable to function in the latter way entirely then and only then could you accuse Him of having perversely made you in a way in which you would never encounter Him. Instead the fact is that it doesn’t come as easy to you (and others). It's not impossible, it's just more difficult and requires perseverance.

What would have been perverse, in fact, would have been if God had taken the opposite approach. Imagine for a moment that discovering / encountering God depended in some way on our intellect / IQ / education. That would have been extremely elitist, very limiting for us ordinary mortals and would have resigned the kingdom of heaven to something of an eternal Mensa club (ugghh!). :greengrin

Instead we are to engage with Him in the first instance using our hearts, which individually we are able to use in much more equal measure.


ancienthibby has often told me to "open my heart to Jesus", on the assumption that I have never considered this or tried it. I just cannot get to a point where I am willing to disregard everything I know to be true and accurate and evidenced to "just have faith" in Gods grace. To me that is an intellectual absurdity, but doubtless it would be "rationalised" by those of faith with me not believing enough or being open enough, so putting the fault on me, not their God.
God says in the bible "if you seek me with all your heart." If instead some part of you holds on to your own understanding and hence remains cynical about the apparent absurdities to you of a creator God, then you're highly unlikely to encounter Him. That first step is all about trust.

Instead there is base human pride in the statement "everything I know to be true and accurate and evidenced". Once we are able to set that to one side, then we are more likely to encounter the living God.

Once you do, the miracles you call for in an earlier post will arise; but they will not be evident in the sudden changing of the sahara desert into a lush, green pasture etc etc. They will be that your creator God not only chooses to reveal himself to you, but that he also loves you and demonstrates as such.

Many millions of Christian believers across the world today can testify to that reality. And God has no favourites.

[Twa Cairpets]

Wishing you a good New Year, TC. I hope 2013 is a happy and healthy year for you and yours. :thumbsup:

And the same back to you and yours BEEJ. :aok:


God is the alpha and the omega and therefore knows the end from the beginning. He sits outside time as we understand it and has seen how things will pan out.

But in order to relate to us he deals in time as we do, in simple chronolgical order. The fact that God is omniscient and omnipotent does not mean that he interferes with our freewill. Your interpretation assumes that everything that we do, say and think has been pre-ordained and set out in detail in advance by this omnipotent God. That's just not the case. If you create beings for relationship and interaction, you don't then turn them into pre-programmed robots by predefining their every move and breath. That would be the exact opposite of us being able to exercise freewill.

A couple of points here.
1) You are shoe-horning your interpretation of how your God deals with time to fit with your position. It doesn't make it wrong, necessarily, but making assumptions about how God must be and the nature of his relationship to time/space etc is piling on the amount of non-evidential supposition.
2) No matter how you juggle the semantics, it is a black and white issue. God cannot literally know everything if actions taken by his creation cause him to be surprised by the exercise of free will. Therefore he cannot be omniscient. Or, as before, if he does know, then demanding me to believe without giving me the tools to do so is cruel and unjust.


And your accusation that you have been in some way created with hell as your destiny is quite wrong. You may (as many of us are) be very well predisposed to engage brain much more readily than your heart; but I doubt that you’re completely incapable on the latter score. Were you to be, as God’s created being, unable to function in the latter way entirely then and only then could you accuse Him of having perversely made you in a way in which you would never encounter Him. Instead the fact is that it doesn’t come as easy to you (and others). It's not impossible, it's just more difficult and requires perseverance.

What would have been perverse, in fact, would have been if God had taken the opposite approach. Imagine for a moment that discovering / encountering God depended in some way on our intellect / IQ / education. That would have been extremely elitist, very limiting for us ordinary mortals and would have resigned the kingdom of heaven to something of an eternal Mensa club (ugghh!). :greengrin

Instead we are to engage with Him in the first instance using our hearts, which individually we are able to use in much more equal measure.

The head v heart argument is not valid. If you mean rational v irrational, then you've got a point, because that is what it boils down to.

If I am Gods created being, then for him to put me on Earth at this particular time, with this particular mindset and this access to knowledge, then it is actually more perverse to not give me the tools to believe. I think I'm a good guy - pretty bright, good friends and family, do lots of volunteer work with kids etc - I just happen to not believe in any particular form of God, and don't think that justifies great swathes of the population thinking I'll deserve to burn in hell.

I also think that intellect and access to knowledge is the biggest threat to religion. All religion has thrived historically to some extent due to demand of unquestioning faith and not to be skeptical of your preacher/Imam/Swami/Living God. i am not saying that you need to be stupid to believe in god, but it has never done religion harm to keep the masses ignorant and servile.


God says in the bible "if you seek me with all your heart." If instead some part of you holds on to your own understanding and hence remains cynical about the apparent absurdities to you of a creator God, then you're highly unlikely to encounter Him. That first step is all about trust.

Instead there is base human pride in the statement "everything I know to be true and accurate and evidenced". Once we are able to set that to one side, then we are more likely to encounter the living God.

Once you do, the miracles you call for in an earlier post will arise; but they will not be evident in the sudden changing of the sahara desert into a lush, green pasture etc etc. They will be that your creator God not only chooses to reveal himself to you, but that he also loves you and demonstrates as such.

It's not pride. It's fact. If I am to accept the bible as true - and I have read it - my interpretation is that there is also a need to believe (amongst other things of course) in the truth and absolute veracity of literal creation, the literal flood and the literal resurrection. The NT (Luke) gives Jesus genealogy back to Adam, so it's a bit of a given that to believe in Jesus the rest of it has to be correct also (notwithstanding the different genealogy in Matthew, and the immaculate nature of the conception). So you're asking me to "trust" in massive supernatural events that have left no evidence whatsoever. Why would I do this? Why would I willingly decide to think that everything we know about the planet and evolution and dinosaurs and the Universe is wrong?

As for your last point, I would personally prefer God to do something that would benefit lots of his creation, rather than just reward me for believing in him.


Many millions of Christian believers across the world today can testify to that reality. And God has no favourites.

This is a very weak argument. According to Wiki, there are 2bn Christians who presumably could back you up. There's also 1.65bn Muslims, 1bn Hindus and 0.5 bn Buddhists, all of whom would undoubtedly make the same claim, with equally passionate and unshakable belief on their own religion. An appeal to popularity isn't a valid argument in this case. In fact, taking the Wiki numbers, Christians accounts for 29% of the global population. Your God may have no favourites, but he's also apparently spectacularly poor at convincing people he is real.

[BEEJ]

:thumbsup:

And the same back to you and yours BEEJ. :aok:
:aok:


A couple of points here.
1) You are shoe-horning your interpretation of how your God deals with time to fit with your position. It doesn't make it wrong, necessarily, but making assumptions about how God must be and the nature of his relationship to time/space etc is piling on the amount of non-evidential supposition.
Which is much the same as you're doing in your argument. :wink:


No matter how you juggle the semantics, it is a black and white issue. God cannot literally know everything if actions taken by his creation cause him to be surprised by the exercise of free will. Therefore he cannot be omniscient. Or, as before, if he does know, then demanding me to believe without giving me the tools to do so is cruel and unjust.
But you do have the tools. They're just not in your particular comfort zone at this stage in your life. And God's omniscience means that whereas He currently knows what your eternal destiny is going to be, you are just assuming what it will be based on your current viewpoints and perspective.


The head v heart argument is not valid. If you mean rational v irrational, then you've got a point, because that is what it boils down to.
It's perfectly valid, because it's God's own instructions as to how He is to be found.

You said earlier in this thread: "But as the Bible is meant to be our instruction manual, it clearly isn't working as such for the majority of humanity." As with any textbook, if you don't follow the instructions of the author, you're not going to get very far, are you?


We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
(1 Corinthians 2: 12 - 14)


As for your last point, I would personally prefer God to something that would benefit lots of his creation, rather than just reward me for believing in him.
Don't think God is in the market for 'bespoke, made to order' miracles to satisfy our doubts on His existence. :greengrin


This is a very weak argument. According to Wiki, there are 2bn Christians who presumably could back you up. There's also 1.65bn Muslims, 1bn Hindus and 0.5 bn Buddhists, all of whom would undoubtedly make the same claim, with equally passionate and unshakable belief on their own religion. An appeal to popularity isn't a valid argument in this case. In fact, taking the Wiki numbers, Christians accounts for 29% of the global population. Your God may have no favourites, but he's also apparently spectacularly poor at convincing people he is real.
Wasn't meant to be a pissing contest on numbers of adherents to the main faiths. Simply pointing out that many Christians can testify to this revelation of God in their lives, which by turn is available to anyone who humbly seeks Him.

Anyway - here's hoping we cuff the Yams on Thursday!! :flag::flag:

[Twa Cairpets]

Which is much the same as you're doing in your argument. :wink:[quote]
I'd have to disagree. Religious faith is belief without evidence - ancienthibee pretty much defined it as such - and I'd agree with him on that. Whether or not you accept the evidence that contradicts biblical teaching - Old Earth, Evolution, no flood etc - it is quite clearly there and available to look at.

[QUOTE=BEEJ;3460871]But you do have the tools. They're just not in your particular comfort zone at this stage in your life. And God's omniscience means that whereas He currently knows what your eternal destiny is going to be, you are just assuming what it will be based on your current viewpoints and perspective.
So you're saying he is omniscient then, and that he knows what my eternal destiny is going to be? In that case, I refer you back to my earlier point. It's a fairly malevolent deity you choose to worship if he knows a lot of his creation will fail his test.


It's perfectly valid, because it's God's own instructions as to how He is to be found.

You said earlier in this thread: "But as the Bible is meant to be our instruction manual, it clearly isn't working as such for the majority of humanity." As with any textbook, if you don't follow the instructions of the author, you're not going to get very far, are you?

I was meaning that the "heart v head" isn't real because it is an entirely human metaphorical construct. No-one thinks with their heart because it is a muscle. What the phrase means is, essentially, to defy evidence and think irrationally.
My point re- the bible is that as a guidebook delivered by an omnipotent God, it neither reaches the majority of his creation, nor is it written in a manner that allows those with access to agree what it means.


You sound a splendid fellow! :greengrin
I am indeed. Good spot... :greengrin


However, I'm happy to accept that God's definition of goodness, righteousness and forgiveness far surpasses any of our definitions and that we can trust Him to get it right. You could argue that He has at least set out what we can expect to happen and has also provided a means of escape. The fact that none of that is intellectually satisfying to you personally is your choice and the exercising of your freewill.
I accept the latter point, but you chose to ignore addressing the fact that you do belong to a religion that has no problem in believing I deserve to suffer eternal agony for the crime of not believing. If my given free will allows that to be the case, then again, I don't think much of the motivations of your chosen deity - and of course I can only look at it from a human perspective - that's what I am. The bibles teaching do tend to strongly anthropomorphise God with human emotion and drives. When its an uncomfortable conclusion, I don't think its valid to suddenly ascribe higher level meaning.


It is pride - in your own knowledge and understanding. And you would prefer to hold on to that rather than risk discovering an alternative reality.


For the points raised earlier, I think it is not pride. Pride suggests a disdain for alternatives - I have a hugely open mind to alternatives, if there is evidence to back it up. I don't think you can believe in the biblical Jesus and the biblical God without believing in all the additional background. Luke lists 76 direct descendants from Jesus to Adam. There are only three explanations. 1) The bible is 100% correct here, with the long lifespans for Adams descendants, building towards the position where the young earth creationist types come from, 2) The bible is wrong in detail, but right in the general concept - how long was Adam alive for in Eden before the fall, or how long was "an age" before Adam was created? If this is true, then its down to interpretation, and given my human fallibility, why should my interpretation be better than an evangelicals or a baptist or a catholics? or 3) The bible is wrong.

If I believe in the bible, I have, by default, to believe in all the other stuff. And I can't do that, and it constantly amazes me that people can.


Don't think God is in the market for 'bespoke, made to order' miracles to satisfy our doubts on His existence. :greengrin
No, I accept that, but why not? If he is demanding of faith and humility from his creation, isn't it at the very least more efficient to get millions of people onside rather than hoping to pick people up one by one?


Wasn't meant to be a pissing contest on numbers of adherents to the main faiths. Simply pointing out that many Christians can testify to this revelation of God in their lives, which by turn is available to anyone who humbly seeks Him.
Equally, I was pointing out that many people of different faith have exactly the same fervour. You can't all be right.


Anyway - here's hoping we cuff the Yams on Thursday!! :flag::flag:
And I will be offering up a wee prayer for just that:greengrin

[Kato]

I'm an atheist but culturally catholic. I don't believe in God but I no longer get as wound up as Hitchens and Dawkins do/did when faced with believers.

The problem with Dawkins et al is they take the nuttiest of the religious standpoints and attack all religion/religious people from that starting point - it's exactly the type of hysterical fundamentalism that they accuse the religious of invoking. Dawkins makes for a good scientist but he's one of the worst theologians ever to walk. The problem that type of militant Athiest faces is that Religious people are always going to around, some people are just made that way and there is some scientific to show this. Rather than attacking people they should learn to live with them, because they are not going anywhere. I think they get religion mixed up with religious institutions, and they are not the same thing.

I'm with TC on the historicity of Jesus - the evidence just isn't there. Further to that writers like Earl Docherty and Freke/Gandy have done some interesting work on how Christianity developed and why it was so succesful.

[yeezus.]

The problem with Dawkins et al is they take the nuttiest of the religious standpoints and attack all religion/religious people from that starting point - it's exactly the type of hysterical fundamentalism that they accuse the religious of invoking. Dawkins makes for a good scientist but he's one of the worst theologians ever to walk. The problem that type of militant Athiest faces is that Religious people are always going to around, some people are just made that way and there is some scientific to show this. Rather than attacking people they should learn to live with them, because they are not going anywhere. I think they get religion mixed up with religious institutions, and they are not the same thing.

I'm with TC on the historicity of Jesus - the evidence just isn't there. Further to that writers like Earl Docherty and Freke/Gandy have done some interesting work on how Christianity developed and why it was so succesful.

:agree: this is what I found with both the God Delusion and God is not Great - two great books for the non-believer but both Hitchens and Dawkins as you say seem to think all religious people subscribe to the homophobic verses of the bible

[ancienthibby]

The problem with Dawkins et al is they take the nuttiest of the religious standpoints and attack all religion/religious people from that starting point - it's exactly the type of hysterical fundamentalism that they accuse the religious of invoking. Dawkins makes for a good scientist but he's one of the worst theologians ever to walk. The problem that type of militant Athiest faces is that Religious people are always going to around, some people are just made that way and there is some scientific to show this. Rather than attacking people they should learn to live with them, because they are not going anywhere. I think they get religion mixed up with religious institutions, and they are not the same thing.

I'm with TC on the historicity of Jesus - the evidence just isn't there. Further to that writers like Earl Docherty and Freke/Gandy have done some interesting work on how Christianity developed and why it was so succesful.

Kato,

Good to get your contribution on this thread - it's gone a bit quiet recently!

TC and I (and others) have had good debates on this subject in the past and I'd just like to make the point that so long as atheists (or doubters) ask for concrete proof of Christ's dwelling on this Good Earth, then rationalists will never find the evidence compelling. If I may say, that is substantially to miss the point! I cannot imagine the Christian religion being based in evidence alone. If so, what's the point? Would we not all be believers??

The Christian religion is based on faith - faith in the Divine Creator God, who came to this Earth in the person of the Human Lord Jesus and, who since then, has touched millions of people in their personal lives the world over to follow Him. This is the experiential Lord Jesus which, I am sure, is what the Lord of Heaven wants us to experience.

Await the moment.....!

[Twa Cairpets]

:agree: this is what I found with both the God Delusion and God is not Great - two great books for the non-believer but both Hitchens and Dawkins as you say seem to think all religious people subscribe to the homophobic verses of the bible

I don't think this is the case.

Hitchens in particular took the view that the existence of the milder forms of all religions formed, by default, a platform for the extremists to operate from, given that the underlying religious motivation comes, literally, from the same source book, albeit interpreted differently.

All religion, as it is created in their view (and mine) by humans as a pre-scientific means of explaining the world and a desire for stories, is a mad baseline upon which to base anything. least of all life-changing belief.

[Twa Cairpets]

Kato,

Good to get your contribution on this thread - it's gone a bit quiet recently!

TC and I (and others) have had good debates on this subject in the past and I'd just like to make the point that so long as atheists (or doubters) ask for concrete proof of Christ's dwelling on this Good Earth, then rationalists will never find the evidence compelling. If I may say, that is substantially to miss the point! I cannot imagine the Christian religion being based in evidence alone. If so, what's the point? Would we not all be believers??

The Christian religion is based on faith - faith in the Divine Creator God, who came to this Earth in the person of the Human Lord Jesus and, who since then, has touched millions of people in their personal lives the world over to follow Him. This is the experiential Lord Jesus which, I am sure, is what the Lord of Heaven wants us to experience.

Await the moment.....!

Not concrete proof. Evidence. Evidence informs decision. You present me compelling evidence and I'll be compelled. Seriously, if something popped up that provided evidence of Jesus' time on Earth - a scroll unequivocally dated to 30AD, describing his life for example, then I'd say "yup, that works for me". It wouldnt necessarily prove he was divine, but would confirm his historicity

Your second sentence is bizarre. I thought God wanted us all to believe and worship. A lot of christians are spending a lot of time trying to evangelise to this end are they not? The point would be that is he did exist and he was real and his rules were clearly understood, then we'd all beleive them, obey them and the world would (by your lights anyway) be a better place.

[Kato]

Kato,

Good to get your contribution on this thread - it's gone a bit quiet recently!

TC and I (and others) have had good debates on this subject in the past and I'd just like to make the point that so long as atheists (or doubters) ask for concrete proof of Christ's dwelling on this Good Earth, then rationalists will never find the evidence compelling. If I may say, that is substantially to miss the point! I cannot imagine the Christian religion being based in evidence alone. If so, what's the point? Would we not all be believers??

The Christian religion is based on faith - faith in the Divine Creator God, who came to this Earth in the person of the Human Lord Jesus and, who since then, has touched millions of people in their personal lives the world over to follow Him. This is the experiential Lord Jesus which, I am sure, is what the Lord of Heaven wants us to experience.

Await the moment.....!

I understand that. I've no problem with anyone who holds a faith in God, Jesus, Allah and follows that route as a personal path to peace. As we all know religion is used by some as a tool for the opposite of peace but that doesn't mean I can't understand when it's heartfelt and coming from a good place.

[Kato]

I don't think this is the case.

Hitchens in particular took the view that the existence of the milder forms of all religions formed, by default, a platform for the extremists to operate from, given that the underlying religious motivation comes, literally, from the same source book, albeit interpreted differently.


The same could be said for anything.

Eugenicists took Darwin as a platform when putting forward the idea that "weak genes" (i.e. people who didn't fit in with their ideas) should be eradicated. There are signs that Dawkins' line of thought will create a more Militant anti-religious stand-point. Most philosophies or ideas for living will throw up extremists - it's nothing to do with the ideas and mainly to do with human nature.

Stephen Hawking put forward a case for the "end of philosophy" a couple of years ago, claiming his findings should be the ultimate in the way we think about the universe. The last groups to take the line that it's the "end of philsophy" were Russian Communists and German National Socialists. There are seemingly mild ideas all around us which could picked up on by extremists and taken any which way they choose, that's not just confined to religions.

[Twa Cairpets]

The same could be said for anything.

Eugenicists took Darwin as a platform when putting forward the idea that "weak genes" (i.e. people who didn't fit in with their ideas) should be eradicated. There are signs that Dawkins' line of thought will create a more Militant anti-religious stand-point. Most philosophies or ideas for living will throw up extremists - it's nothing to do with the ideas and mainly to do with human nature.

Stephen Hawking put forward a case for the "end of philosophy" a couple of years ago, claiming his findings should be the ultimate in the way we think about the universe. The last groups to take the line that it's the "end of philsophy" were Russian Communists and German National Socialists. There are seemingly mild ideas all around us which could picked up on by extremists and taken any which way they choose, that's not just confined to religions.

Fair points, but the fact the eugenics is a warped human interpretation of evolutionary theory does not impact on the fact of evolution. Humanities philosophical interpretation of a fact (or more accurately the misunderstanding of what they think of as a fact), does not change the veracity of the fact.

The issue with religion is that it (in my opinion obviously) is a man made construct, so the philosophy based upon it - good or bad - is the extension of what is at best a story. Christians view what Buddhists believe as touchingly childish. Muslims view anything other than Mohammed's teachings as an abomination. Surely everyone on the planet sees Scientologists belief in Xenu as startlingly bonkers. Yet millions of people build varying levels of spiritual devotion on the teachings/fables of these faiths.

At the very best, only one can be "true", and all unevidenced to the same degree. The ability therefore to warp the nobler principles of the religions is infinite. If the fundamental basis is, essentially, made-up, then it can be twisted to whatever you want it to.

[ancienthibby]

Not concrete proof. Evidence. Evidence informs decision. You present me compelling evidence and I'll be compelled. Seriously, if something popped up that provided evidence of Jesus' time on Earth - a scroll unequivocally dated to 30AD, describing his life for example, then I'd say "yup, that works for me". It wouldnt necessarily prove he was divine, but would confirm his historicity

Your second sentence is bizarre. I thought God wanted us all to believe and worship. A lot of christians are spending a lot of time trying to evangelise to this end are they not? The point would be that is he did exist and he was real and his rules were clearly understood, then we'd all beleive them, obey them and the world would (by your lights anyway) be a better place.


Only from your perspective, TC!

I recall watching part of a Hitchens video, where all he was doing was mocking God, as in 'why would a God bypass the oil rich counties of the Middle East and send His Son to Israel'?? Thinking that our human intelligence is sufficient to challenge God is an avenue of no return. Scripture tells us constantly that we are incapable of questioning the mind of God.

In my previous post, I had in mind a passage of Scripture which I quote here for you:

John 20:26-31New International Version (NIV)

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”


The key to what I said before lies in v 29, where it is made abundantly clear that it is faith and not evidence that is the key marker for believing in the Risen Christ. That verse alone gives so much hope to so many seekers in these days all over the world!

[Twa Cairpets]

Only from your perspective, TC!

I recall watching part of a Hitchens video, where all he was doing was mocking God, as in 'why would a God bypass the oil rich counties of the Middle East and send His Son to Israel'?? Thinking that our human intelligence is sufficient to challenge God is an avenue of no return. Scripture tells us constantly that we are incapable of questioning the mind of God.

In my previous post, I had in mind a passage of Scripture which I quote here for you:

John 20:26-31New International Version (NIV)

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”


The key to what I said before lies in v 29, where it is made abundantly clear that it is faith and not evidence that is the key marker for believing in the Risen Christ. That verse alone gives so much hope to so many seekers in these days all over the world!


Just one to flash across your bows.

Imagine for a minute the possibility that the bible is a man-made construct. I know you don't believe this but humour me.

If you were to write a sentence that was to give your fledgling religion easy legitimacy with your believers, wouldn't you say "blessed are those who have not yet seen and yet have believed?"

It's comforting, and requires no effort on behalf of the believer, other than to say "I believe". I think that sentiment would find huge appeal amongst those seeking an easy deity to worship.

With your Hitchens reference, you have to remember he isn't mocking God because he didn't believe he exists. He's mocking what he sees as the absurdities arriving from belief. By and large the Hitchens debates are testament to an incredibly sharp mind and a deep knowledge of what he's talking about.

[Bishop Hibee]

Denial of Jesus Christ being a real person is the atheist equivalent of Christian fundamentalists belief in creation actually happening in 6 days. Utterly bizarre.

[Hibstrooper]

You don't have to go through religion to get to God.

I was brought up Catholic and my wife still goes to mass every week however I rarely go however not because I don't believe. Going back to the thread title, I believe God is love and God will come to people in different ways. For a lot of people that is a shared connection through a major religion however for me it is very much more personal and an inner connection.

Each to their own and as long as they hold love in their heart I'm sure God will welcome them and this is more important than following any particular religious teachings.

[Twa Cairpets]

Denial of Jesus Christ being a real person is the atheist equivalent of Christian fundamentalists belief in creation actually happening in 6 days. Utterly bizarre.

I am not denying that Jesus existed. My personal opinion/suspicion is that there probably was a charismatic preacher at the time, and that around him built up the early christian cult, which was shaped by entirely secular and political hands over the coming centuries. I have no reason to believe that if he did exist, he was anything other than entirely human.

I have no idea why you would think that questioning the existence of the historical Jesus is "bizarre". Unless you can correct me, and has been mentioned throughout this thread, there is no corroborating extra biblical evidence for his existence, far less for any of the miracles. I personally would think it bizarre to accept that he must have existed solely because the bible says he did.

As for creationists, well, I do agree with you that they have bizarre beliefs, but at least they are unflinching in their interpretation of the bible. It either is it what it says or it isn't. I find their stance intellectually laughable and (often) morally repugnant, but it has more theological honesty than shoe-horning a belief in the fact of, say, evolution into a biblical framework. As mentioned earlier, the bible has in the canonical gospels two genealogies for Jesus stretching back to Abraham and, in the case of Luke, Adam. This is either correct or it isn't. Despite the best efforts of the apologetics movement, to me it must be a hell of an uncomfortable compromise to square an old earth and evolution with what the bible says happened. The creationists just choose to reject every piece of evidence, working from the presupposition that the bible is true so everything must be interpreted from within that viewpoint.

[Twa Cairpets]

You don't have to go through religion to get to God.

I was brought up Catholic and my wife still goes to mass every week however I rarely go however not because I don't believe. Going back to the thread title, I believe God is love and God will come to people in different ways. For a lot of people that is a shared connection through a major religion however for me it is very much more personal and an inner connection.

Each to their own and as long as they hold love in their heart I'm sure God will welcome them and this is more important than following any particular religious teachings.

Interesting post. Is your God a personal God to you then, or do you feel the need to worship/pray/accept Jesus as your personal saviour? I find it easier to accept your position than that of dogmatic religion, because it is less open to manipulation by church/preachers etc, but it does of course mean that you can define God in a way that meets your personal definition of "love".

[Hibrandenburg]

I am not denying that Jesus existed. My personal opinion/suspicion is that there probably was a charismatic preacher at the time, and that around him built up the early christian cult, which was shaped by entirely secular and political hands over the coming centuries. I have no reason to believe that if he did exist, he was anything other than entirely human.

I have no idea why you would think that questioning the existence of the historical Jesus is "bizarre". Unless you can correct me, and has been mentioned throughout this thread, there is no corroborating extra biblical evidence for his existence, far less for any of the miracles. I personally would think it bizarre to accept that he must have existed solely because the bible says he did.

As for creationists, well, I do agree with you that they have bizarre beliefs, but at least they are unflinching in their interpretation of the bible. It either is it what it says or it isn't. I find their stance intellectually laughable and (often) morally repugnant, but it has more theological honesty than shoe-horning a belief in the fact of, say, evolution into a biblical framework. As mentioned earlier, the bible has in the canonical gospels two genealogies for Jesus stretching back to Abraham and, in the case of Luke, Adam. This is either correct or it isn't. Despite the best efforts of the apologetics movement, to me it must be a hell of an uncomfortable compromise to square an old earth and evolution with what the bible says happened. The creationists just choose to reject every piece of evidence, working from the presupposition that the bible is true so everything must be interpreted from within that viewpoint.

Think that most historians would agree that the man Jesus did exist. However the mists of time have made it almost impossible to say exactly where, when and how his life panned out. My personal belief is that there was a charismatic Ghandi like figure who went by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. I can also accept that this figure amassed a huge following and that the influence of his teachings were carried by his followers beyond the borders of Israel and gathered supporters within the Roman establishment.

This last point is crucial to my own personal theory and I'd like to state here that that's all it is, my personal theory. The Roman Empire was in serious danger of collapsing toward the end of the 4th century and was in need of a face lift to ensure it's continued existence. I believe that the formation of the Roman Catholic Church was a conscious attempt to ensure that Rome remained the powerhouse of the known world. By legalising Christianity and bringing the growing number of influential Christians under the control of the newly formed church, the Roman Empire made a conscious transferral of power from the Emperor to the Pontiff and thus insuring that the seat of world power remained in Rome.

Like most religions I think that the Christian one has it's roots in politics. In other words a means of enacting power over a group of people. I feel the same can be said for Judaism and Islam. It's for this reason that I refuse to accept the teachings and moral code of any religion and although I do tend to share some of my ever changing moral codes with them, I could never accept them as law.

[Twa Cairpets]

Think that most historians would agree that the man Jesus did exist. However the mists of time have made it almost impossible to say exactly where, when and how his life panned out. My personal belief is that there was a charismatic Ghandi like figure who went by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. I can also accept that this figure amassed a huge following and that the influence of his teachings were carried by his followers beyond the borders of Israel and gathered supporters within the Roman establishment.

This last point is crucial to my own personal theory and I'd like to state here that that's all it is, my personal theory. The Roman Empire was in serious danger of collapsing toward the end of the 4th century and was in need of a face lift to ensure it's continued existence. I believe that the formation of the Roman Catholic Church was a conscious attempt to ensure that Rome remained the powerhouse of the known world. By legalising Christianity and bringing the growing number of influential Christians under the control of the newly formed church, the Roman Empire made a conscious transferral of power from the Emperor to the Pontiff and thus insuring that the seat of world power remained in Rome.

Like most religions I think that the Christian one has it's roots in politics. In other words a means of enacting power over a group of people. I feel the same can be said for Judaism and Islam. It's for this reason that I refuse to accept the teachings and moral code of any religion and although I do tend to share some of my ever changing moral codes with them, I could never accept them as law.

Great post, and I agree with pretty much every word, but am going to be very picky and pull you up on the first line. Most biblical scholars believe that Jesus did exist - they are pre-disposed by faith to come to that conclusion, and it is an active branch of apologetics. Non-partisan historians simply cannot come to a conclusion that Jesus did exist because like science, a hypothesis needs supported by evidence, and there is none. I understand entirely that absence of evidence in this case does not necessarily equate to evidence of absence, but given the claims and actions made by Jesus - son of God, here to take mankinds sins, preaching the Word of God, miracles, etc, it is astonishingly implausible that no-one, not one person, around at the time thought to record it at a time when records were being copiously kept. When you look at Tacitus and Josephus et al years after the alleged events, the references are to christians, not christ. The existence of christians does not prove the existence of Jesus anymore than the existence of Scientologists proves the existence of Xenu.

[LeighLoyal]

I beleive in a spirit realm and greater reality, but not religion.

[Twa Cairpets]

I beleive in a spirit realm and greater reality, but not religion.

What do you believe in precisely if you don't mind me asking? Is the spirit realm a place of ghosts of ancestors, or a place where you go after you die? Is their a deity who has a personal interest in your well being? Always interested in why people believe in these things.

[RyeSloan]

Only from your perspective, TC!

I recall watching part of a Hitchens video, where all he was doing was mocking God, as in 'why would a God bypass the oil rich counties of the Middle East and send His Son to Israel'?? Thinking that our human intelligence is sufficient to challenge God is an avenue of no return. Scripture tells us constantly that we are incapable of questioning the mind of God.

In my previous post, I had in mind a passage of Scripture which I quote here for you:

John 20:26-31New International Version (NIV)

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”


The key to what I said before lies in v 29, where it is made abundantly clear that it is faith and not evidence that is the key marker for believing in the Risen Christ. That verse alone gives so much hope to so many seekers in these days all over the world!



This may be a simplistic question but when was the Gospel of John would appear to be believed to be written?

One site does suggest somewhere AD75 -AD100. Therefore maybe over 50 - 75 years after the above was meant to have happened.....is it only me that finds it somewhat incredible that conversations recorded so long after the event are then accepted as accurate and quoted as the word of God? Or am I misisng something here?

[ancienthibby]

Just one to flash across your bows.

Imagine for a minute the possibility that the bible is a man-made construct. I know you don't believe this but humour me.

If you were to write a sentence that was to give your fledgling religion easy legitimacy with your believers, wouldn't you say "blessed are those who have not yet seen and yet have believed?"

It's comforting, and requires no effort on behalf of the believer, other than to say "I believe". I think that sentiment would find huge appeal amongst those seeking an easy deity to worship.

With your Hitchens reference, you have to remember he isn't mocking God because he didn't believe he exists. He's mocking what he sees as the absurdities arriving from belief. By and large the Hitchens debates are testament to an incredibly sharp mind and a deep knowledge of what he's talking about.


Thanks kindly, TC, but that's one invitation I cannot take up! To do so would be a betrayal of Who I believe in!

Of course, you could do the same for yourself and ask the question: What if all these Christian believers have got it right and that the Divine Son of God, the Lord Jesus, is true and real, maybe not because of historical evidence that I so desperately demand, but because of His person impact on the lives of millions and millions of personal believers the world over??

I also think you are quite wrong in the final highlighted sentence. Believing is not easy. It takes a huge effort to do so, and there are Christians all through history who will testify to 'their wresting with God'.

[ancienthibby]

Think that most historians would agree that the man Jesus did exist. However the mists of time have made it almost impossible to say exactly where, when and how his life panned out. My personal belief is that there was a charismatic Ghandi like figure who went by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. I can also accept that this figure amassed a huge following and that the influence of his teachings were carried by his followers beyond the borders of Israel and gathered supporters within the Roman establishment.

This last point is crucial to my own personal theory and I'd like to state here that that's all it is, my personal theory. The Roman Empire was in serious danger of collapsing toward the end of the 4th century and was in need of a face lift to ensure it's continued existence. I believe that the formation of the Roman Catholic Church was a conscious attempt to ensure that Rome remained the powerhouse of the known world. By legalising Christianity and bringing the growing number of influential Christians under the control of the newly formed church, the Roman Empire made a conscious transferral of power from the Emperor to the Pontiff and thus insuring that the seat of world power remained in Rome.

Like most religions I think that the Christian one has it's roots in politics. In other words a means of enacting power over a group of people. I feel the same can be said for Judaism and Islam. It's for this reason that I refuse to accept the teachings and moral code of any religion and although I do tend to share some of my ever changing moral codes with them, I could never accept them as law.

I have highlighted a couple of lines from your post, because they are so important and quite clearly at dispute with other posters on this thread.

Not to disrespect TC, (and I would not do that) but your first point is deserving of further prominence. I agree wholeheartedly that the physical existence of Jesus is validated over and over again by historical scholars of all sorts and that it is completely disingenuous to belittle these scholars as having a vested interest.

On your own second point. I would take issue with your foundational point about religion equalling political control. The Christian gospel, in my limited understanding, is based completely on the love of God for a fallen race. Though you are right if you are saying that devious people have useed this as a control mechanism.

The Christian gospel is not about power, nor authority, nor arrogance.

It is about humility. The humility that took the Son of the Living God to go to the Cross, be humiliated throughout the whole process, and yet lay His life down for a failed humanity that had rejected His Father's offer of salvation!

[RyeSloan]

Thanks kindly, TC, but that's one invitation I cannot take up! To do so would be a betrayal of Who I believe in!

Of course, you could do the same for yourself and ask the question: What if all these Christian believers have got it right and that the Divine Son of God, the Lord Jesus, is true and real, maybe not because of historical evidence that I so desperately demand, but because of His person impact on the lives of millions and millions of personal believers the world over??I also think you are quite wrong in the final highlighted sentence. Believing is not easy. It takes a huge effort to do so, and there are Christians all through history who will testify to 'their wresting with God'.

That then would appear to be a completely human construct...their beliefs and the actions and feelings those beliefs cause are the result of their own thoughts.

[ancienthibby]

That then would appear to be a completely human construct...their beliefs and the actions and feelings those beliefs cause are the result of their own thoughts.

Absolutely not!

These beliefs and actions are initiated because 'the still small voice of God' has been heard in those lives!

[Twa Cairpets]

Thanks kindly, TC, but that's one invitation I cannot take up! To do so would be a betrayal of Who I believe in!

OK, I'll phrase it another way. If I was to create a religion, would it be a clever ploy for me to say "because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" to encourage those who have not had a revelation to consider themselves blessed even without anything to support my claim?


Of course, you could do the same for yourself and ask the question: What if all these Christian believers have got it right and that the Divine Son of God, the Lord Jesus, is true and real, maybe not because of historical evidence that I so desperately demand, but because of His person impact on the lives of millions and millions of personal believers the world over??

I have asked that question - it's fascinating to consider. I've also asked myself if Allah is correct, or if Christianity is true, which particular version is nearest the truth. As I've alluded to earlier, I actually think that the least compromising to biblical "truth" are evangelical creationists, and they are so wildly and demonstrably wide of the truth it's painful.

I don't "desperately" demand evidence, but I think it fair to ask for some if I'm being asked to dedicate what I believe to be my one life to a deity which does His best, it would appear to me, to put barriers between the ability to believe and the belief He apparently craves. Your "appeal to popularity" about how he touched lives of people is simply not valid, unless oyu are prepared to give equal credence to those who every bit as sincerely as you believe they have been touched by Allah, Odin, Jupiter and Zeus. Would you suggest they are deluded, or have been fooled by the devil?


I also think you are quite wrong in the final highlighted sentence. Believing is not easy. It takes a huge effort to do so, and there are Christians all through history who will testify to 'their wresting with God'.
Fair enough. But the point was very specific to the statement about what would appeal to a potential follower of a religion if you were setting one up.

[Twa Cairpets]

I have highlighted a couple of lines from your post, because they are so important and quite clearly at dispute with other posters on this thread.

Not to disrespect TC, (and I would not do that) but your first point is deserving of further prominence. I agree wholeheartedly that the physical existence of Jesus is validated over and over again by historical scholars of all sorts and that it is completely disingenuous to belittle these scholars as having a vested interest.

We've been here before, right at the start of this thread. This is simply not true, unless you can show me evidence otherwise. No evidence doesn't mean he didn't exist, it means there is no evidence to support the claim. This is fact, despite your repeated assertion to the contrary.

[LeighLoyal]

What do you believe in precisely if you don't mind me asking? Is the spirit realm a place of ghosts of ancestors, or a place where you go after you die? Is their a deity who has a personal interest in your well being? Always interested in why people believe in these things.


I've investigated it quite extensively, there are mediums I believe to have been genuine. The late Eddie Burks, and most especially Leslie Flint who manifested voices from thin air and was tested by multiple scientific people during his life. This link has many recordings. http://www.leslieflint.com/ Regards what it is, I don't know fully. It's another dimension(s) but no less real. I've read a lot of Neale Donald Walsh who I find to be illuminating on the subject and provides the clearest explanation I've read, an explanation wholly consistent with the spiritualist view of survival. We're getting near to proving other dimensions via advances in quantum physics, hopefully one day there will be evidence of clear unambiguous communication from the deceased that can erase religion as we know it. I don't disparage atheists. I enjoyed Chris Hitchens greatly, Dawkins also somewhat. I certainly prefer them to Islamists, evangelicals and other dogmatists.

[Twa Cairpets]

I've investigated it quite extensively, there are mediums I believe to have been genuine. The late Eddie Burks, and most especially Leslie Flint who manifested voices from thin air and was tested by multiple scientific people during his life. This link has many recordings. http://www.leslieflint.com/ Regards what it is, I don't know fully. It's another dimension(s) but no less real. I've read a lot of Neale Donald Walsh who I find to be illuminating on the subject and provides the clearest explanation I've read, an explanation wholly consistent with the spiritualist view of survival. We're getting near to proving other dimensions via advances in quantum physics, hopefully one day there will be evidence of clear unambiguous communication from the deceased that can erase religion as we know it. I don't disparage atheists. I enjoyed Chris Hitchens greatly, Dawkins also somewhat. I certainly prefer them to Islamists, evangelicals and other dogmatists.

Thanks for this.

I hadn't come across Flint, so have just done a little bit of cursory digging. It seems like the main testing protocol was to fill his mouth with a coloured liquid and then tape it closed before doing his mediumship, which was in total darkness. I came across this as a possible way he could do it.


In 1947 this trick was performed at the Kingsway Hall in London by William Roy, a hugely successful English medium. His hands were tied to his chair, his mouth was filled with coloured water and sticking plaster was placed across his mouth. The lights were turned off and, much to the amazement of the audience, Roy somehow managed to produce spirit voices.

Five years later his assistant exposed him as a fraud. How was the "mouth full of water" trick performed? Simple: under cover of darkness Roy leaned over, loosened the sticking plaster with one tied hand and ejected the water through a rubber tube into a container hidden inside his jacket. After producing the voices Roy sucked up the water and smoothed the sticking plaster back into place.

Bearing in mind the fact that such effects were performed in darkness, I would suggest that Leslie Flint used the same modus operandi.

Walsch I also don't know, and his websites are a bit too "Deepak Chopra" for my personal taste.

I'm interested in your last point. If you believe in the spiritual world, and the existence of souls in an another plane, do you think this exists outwith of a religious framework? Is it a place where spirits exist independently, or is there a creator/saviour that rules the spiritual world, and acts as a judge as to whether one is worthy of an afterlife? You'll accept that I personally think that spiritualism is at best misplaced enthusiasm but at worst outright fraud, but I am interested why people belive it so fervently.

On various threads in the past I've recommended Attack of the Unsinkable Rubber Ducks by Christopher Brookmyre. Brilliant and very, very funny book on everything in this thread (and the inspiration for my avatar). Well worth a read if you're interested in spiritualism.

[LeighLoyal]

Thanks for this.

I hadn't come across Flint, so have just done a little bit of cursory digging. It seems like the main testing protocol was to fill his mouth with a coloured liquid and then tape it closed before doing his mediumship, which was in total darkness. I came across this as a possible way he could do it.



Walsch I also don't know, and his websites are a bit too "Deepak Chopra" for my personal taste.

I'm interested in your last point. If you believe in the spiritual world, and the existence of souls in an another plane, do you think this exists outwith of a religious framework? Is it a place where spirits exist independently, or is there a creator/saviour that rules the spiritual world, and acts as a judge as to whether one is worthy of an afterlife? You'll accept that I personally think that spiritualism is at best misplaced enthusiasm but at worst outright fraud, but I am interested why people belive it so fervently.

On various threads in the past I've recommended Attack of the Unsinkable Rubber Ducks by Christopher Brookmyre. Brilliant and very, very funny book on everything in this thread (and the inspiration for my avatar). Well worth a read if you're interested in spiritualism.



The thing about Flint was he did it consistently from the early 50's to the 90's, never accepted a penny for his work or sought any wider publicity. I don't think he could possibly have produced the voices, many that occur simultaneously and of both sexes, his guide Mickey in particular. If it was faked it was done with a company of actors with exceptional script writers, none whom have come forward in the twenty years since his passing. On Walsch, yes, New Ageism mostly sings from the same sheet, but surely this is a good thing as it promotes a more unified theory. I read all his books up to 2005, enjoyed them all and read them several times, seeking truth.


From what I've gathered, there is no judging, you are your own judge and jury. And it's what you make it, thought itself is the creative force in the spiritual plane the most basic being telepathy. You can manifest your own house by careful thought processes, and planning. It is not an alien environment, it's much like this one but without all the pollution and industry, the main thing is it is a place of great empathy. I don't think a guy in a white beard sits on a throne, it's beyond our understanding to make sense of what god is. The universe itself is god, that's my personal view. Everything. I'll check out your book recommendation.

[Hibrandenburg]

The thing about Flint was he did it consistently from the early 50's to the 90's, never accepted a penny for his work or sought any wider publicity. I don't think he could possibly have produced the voices, many that occur simultaneously and of both sexes, his guide Mickey in particular. If it was faked it was done with a company of actors with exceptional script writers, none whom have come forward in the twenty years since his passing. On Walsch, yes, New Ageism mostly sings from the same sheet, but surely this is a good thing as it promotes a more unified theory. I read all his books up to 2005, enjoyed them all and read them several times, seeking truth.


From what I've gathered, there is no judging, you are your own judge and jury. And it's what you make it, thought itself is the creative force in the spiritual plane the most basic being telepathy. You can manifest your own house by careful thought processes, and planning. It is not an alien environment, it's much like this one but without all the pollution and industry, the main thing is it is a place of great empathy. I don't think a guy in a white beard sits on a throne, it's beyond our understanding to make sense of what god is. The universe itself is god, that's my personal view. Everything. I'll check out your book recommendation.

Sounds good, can anyone go or are there restrictions as to who is allowed in?

[Hibrandenburg]

Great post, and I agree with pretty much every word, but am going to be very picky and pull you up on the first line. Most biblical scholars believe that Jesus did exist - they are pre-disposed by faith to come to that conclusion, and it is an active branch of apologetics. Non-partisan historians simply cannot come to a conclusion that Jesus did exist because like science, a hypothesis needs supported by evidence, and there is none. I understand entirely that absence of evidence in this case does not necessarily equate to evidence of absence, but given the claims and actions made by Jesus - son of God, here to take mankinds sins, preaching the Word of God, miracles, etc, it is astonishingly implausible that no-one, not one person, around at the time thought to record it at a time when records were being copiously kept. When you look at Tacitus and Josephus et al years after the alleged events, the references are to christians, not christ. The existence of christians does not prove the existence of Jesus anymore than the existence of Scientologists proves the existence of Xenu.

Point taken TC. For some reason I took it for granted that JC had been confirmed in documentation regarding his sentencing by Pontius Pilate. There would appear to be no documentation regarding JC that was made during his lifetime. Almost unthinkable really.

[Rasta_Hibs]

You don't have to go through religion to get to God.

I was brought up Catholic and my wife still goes to mass every week however I rarely go however not because I don't believe. Going back to the thread title, I believe God is love and God will come to people in different ways. For a lot of people that is a shared connection through a major religion however for me it is very much more personal and an inner connection.

Each to their own and as long as they hold love in their heart I'm sure God will welcome them and this is more important than following any particular religious teachings.

As a fellow Bathgater i agree completely and this is how i feel about God! I have no idea who or what it is but if you have love in your heart, what more can you have?

[LeighLoyal]

Sounds good, can anyone go or are there restrictions as to who is allowed in?



No restrictions, anyone can get in, but there are supposedly lower levels for the less spiritualy developed which includes being stuck on the earth level. Terrorists expecting 72 virgins are not allowed in. I've researched that issue and been told they are held in a holding pattern outside the gates so to speak. So already stricter than the alleged UK border agency. :rolleyes:

[ancienthibby]

Point taken TC. For some reason I took it for granted that JC had been confirmed in documentation regarding his sentencing by Pontius Pilate. There would appear to be no documentation regarding JC that was made during his lifetime. Almost unthinkable really.

No it's not if you think about the nature of the ministry of Christ.

It was never meant to be an ancient version of razzmadazz reporting as we are infected with nowadays.

Christ's ministry was always a highly personal one. He never conformed to what we might think a Messiah should do. He mixed with fishermen, tax-gathers, women and the poor and disabled. His relationship with people was always personal and when He introduced The Great Commission after His resurrection, His apostles moved, over many years to spread the Gospel personally to all corners of the then known world.

Philip, Peter and Mark were on the road within a very few years later followed by Paul (formerly Saul) a decade on with the first of his three journeys, and who then recorded his travels and experiences in the Acts of the Apostles and several epistles.

It's abundantly clear that the Christian Gospel was created to grow precisely as an experiential movement in that just as the Lord Jesus touched people's lives (e.g His apostles) in turn further witnessing was to be done person-to-person.

And it remains the same today.

It is the experiences of ordinary folk throughout the generations that serve as the real witness to the continuing power and life-changing impact of the Lord's personalised Gospel.

[Twa Cairpets]

No it's not if you think about the nature of the ministry of Christ.

It was never meant to be an ancient version of razzmadazz reporting as we are infected with nowadays.

Christ's ministry was always a highly personal one. He never conformed to what we might think a Messiah should do. He mixed with fishermen, tax-gathers, women and the poor and disabled. His relationship with people was always personal and when He introduced The Great Commission after His resurrection, His apostles moved, over many years to spread the Gospel personally to all corners of the then known world.

Philip, Peter and Mark were on the road within a very few years later followed by Paul (formerly Saul) a decade on with the first of his three journeys, and who then recorded his travels and experiences in the Acts of the Apostles and several epistles.

It's abundantly clear that the Christian Gospel was created to grow precisely as an experiential movement in that just as the Lord Jesus touched people's lives (e.g His apostles) in turn further witnessing was to be done person-to-person.

And it remains the same today.

It is the experiences of ordinary folk throughout the generations that serve as the real witness to the continuing power and life-changing impact of the Lord's personalised Gospel.

No I'm sorry this just won't wash.
A preacher who doesn't want publicity? A "son of God" who wants to be low key? A saviour who doesn't want to make much of a fuss?
He actively sought converts to his faith, according to the bible. Your rationalisation is Apologetics 101, and does you no credit.

[Bishop Hibee]

I am not denying that Jesus existed. My personal opinion/suspicion is that there probably was a charismatic preacher at the time, and that around him built up the early christian cult, which was shaped by entirely secular and political hands over the coming centuries. I have no reason to believe that if he did exist, he was anything other than entirely human.

I have no idea why you would think that questioning the existence of the historical Jesus is "bizarre". Unless you can correct me, and has been mentioned throughout this thread, there is no corroborating extra biblical evidence for his existence, far less for any of the miracles. I personally would think it bizarre to accept that he must have existed solely because the bible says he did.

As for creationists, well, I do agree with you that they have bizarre beliefs, but at least they are unflinching in their interpretation of the bible. It either is it what it says or it isn't. I find their stance intellectually laughable and (often) morally repugnant, but it has more theological honesty than shoe-horning a belief in the fact of, say, evolution into a biblical framework. As mentioned earlier, the bible has in the canonical gospels two genealogies for Jesus stretching back to Abraham and, in the case of Luke, Adam. This is either correct or it isn't. Despite the best efforts of the apologetics movement, to me it must be a hell of an uncomfortable compromise to square an old earth and evolution with what the bible says happened. The creationists just choose to reject every piece of evidence, working from the presupposition that the bible is true so everything must be interpreted from within that viewpoint.

You are in opposition to the majority of scholars in this field if you believe their was not a historical person called Jesus, the Christ. Good old wiki here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

As for creationists being unflinching in the literal interpretation of the bible, they don't believe in the literal nature of Luke 22:19 - "This is my body given for you" They believe it is symbolic unlike Roman Catholics who believe the bread was actually his body and the wine his blood. Every Christian denomination and generation interprets the bible.

[Twa Cairpets]

You are in opposition to the majority of scholars in this field if you believe their was not a historical person called Jesus, the Christ. Good old wiki here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

As for creationists being unflinching in the literal interpretation of the bible, they don't believe in the literal nature of Luke 22:19 - "This is my body given for you" They believe it is symbolic unlike Roman Catholics who believe the bread was actually his body and the wine his blood. Every Christian denomination and generation interprets the bible.

In this instance wiki is not reliable. It defines historicity in a very loose way. I'm not being awkward here - The fact is simply that there is no contemporary record of Jesus. This statement is indisputable.I've already said I think there probably was a human preacher, but there is zero evidence for his divinity.

I can't comment on you like quote, but you'd have to agree for the most part creationists are fairly dogmatic in their belief in the literal inerrancy of the bible.

[heretoday]

Well I don't know much.

I went and sat in a church for 20 minutes at lunchtime today and it certainly gave me a modicum of peace.

I'll probably do it again too.

[Fantic]

Even though church attendances are down, I think discussions like this show that a lot of people have personal faith. I reckon there is a heaven. It happens through experiences you have as life passes you by.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I reckon there is a heaven. It happens through experiences you have as life passes you by.

Any examples for the sceptics amongst us?

[joe breezy]

Any examples for the sceptics amongst us?

Hearts 0, Hibs 7

I'm pretty confident, 100% in my mind, that there is no god but people do have a feeling in life of lack of control.

This lack if control is answered by believing that there are powers in control, hence the universal need for prayer.

Until people accept science reason and complete lack of control over the fact that we and our loved ones ate going to die them there will always be religion but it would be good if people were to accept reality I think.

Dawkins has a poor personality but I'm easy about attacking religion as it attacks everyone else most if the time, certainly Islam and Christianity, perhaps not Buddhism - I have a Buddha in my house - more as a souvenir of Thailand

[joe breezy]

Hearts 0, Hibs 7

I'm pretty confident, 100% in my mind, that there is no god but people do have a feeling in life of lack of control.

This lack if control is answered by believing that there are powers in control, hence the universal need for prayer.

Until people accept science reason and complete lack of control over the fact that we and our loved ones ate going to die them there will always be religion but it would be good if people were to accept reality I think.

Dawkins has a poor personality but I'm easy about attacking religion as it attacks everyone else most if the time, certainly Islam and Christianity, perhaps not Buddhism - I have a Buddha in my house - more as a souvenir of Thailand

iPhone typos apologies

[ancienthibby]

No I'm sorry this just won't wash.
A preacher who doesn't want publicity? A "son of God" who wants to be low key? A saviour who doesn't want to make much of a fuss?
He actively sought converts to his faith, according to the bible. Your rationalisation is Apologetics 101, and does you no credit.

Have a strong word with yourself, TC!

Where did I use, or suggest terms like 'publicity', 'low key' or 'fuss'.

The subject of the post (and others in this thread) was the so-called lack of evidence about His earthly existence. My point was that it was by speaking to people that word of His existence spread by word of mouth. Likewise, His apostles did the same thing on their missionary journeys, as with Paul, for example. The Christian Gospel in the years following Jesus death and resurrection spread from person to person, from community to community from region to region

You may not like it, but the ministry of Jesus was very much a personal one, He offered Himself to the cross for each and every person. He sent His apostles out into the world with only the clothes on their back and a staff. He Himself did not even have a place to lay His head

And as for 'a Saviour not wanting to make a fuss' from His birth to His death, His life was one of service and humility. At His trial, He was hit, spat on and mocked. He uttered not a word.

[Twa Cairpets]

Have a strong word with yourself, TC!

Where did I use, or suggest terms like 'publicity', 'low key' or 'fuss'.

The subject of the post (and others in this thread) was the so-called lack of evidence about His earthly existence. My point was that it was by speaking to people that word of His existence spread by word of mouth. Likewise, His apostles did the same thing on their missionary journeys, as with Paul, for example. The Christian Gospel in the years following Jesus death and resurrection spread from person to person, from community to community from region to region

You may not like it, but the ministry of Jesus was very much a personal one, He offered Himself to the cross for each and every person. He sent His apostles out into the world with only the clothes on their back and a staff. He Himself did not even have a place to lay His head

And as for 'a Saviour not wanting to make a fuss' from His birth to His death, His life was one of service and humility. At His trial, He was hit, spat on and mocked. He uttered not a word.

You quite clearly implied that Jesus' ministry was low key in response to me suggesting it was almost unthinkable that no-one appears to have recorded so much as a single corroborative record of his existence, let alone his alleged miracles. I don't see what other possible conclusion there was to your comment about "razzmatazz". I would also suggest that individual word of mouth ministry is a terribly inefficient way to spread the word, especially if the soul of you creation is at stake.

The rest of your post is the usual circular logic. The bible doesn't substantiate the existence of Jesus.

Also, frankly, about bearing his alleged ill-use during his alleged trial with dignity - so what? Are you suggesting that humans are incapable of acting with humility and stoicism in the face of impending death?

[ancienthibby]

You quite clearly implied that Jesus' ministry was low key in response to me suggesting it was almost unthinkable that no-one appears to have recorded so much as a single corroborative record of his existence, let alone his alleged miracles. I don't see what other possible conclusion there was to your comment about "razzmatazz". I would also suggest that individual word of mouth ministry is a terribly inefficient way to spread the word, especially if the soul of you creation is at stake.

The rest of your post is the usual circular logic. The bible doesn't substantiate the existence of Jesus.

Also, frankly, about bearing his alleged ill-use during his alleged trial with dignity - so what? Are you suggesting that humans are incapable of acting with humility and stoicism in the face of impending death?

No I'm sorry this just won't wash.
A preacher who doesn't want publicity? A "son of God" who wants to be low key? A saviour who doesn't want to make much of a fuss?

For the record this is your post that I responded to. You raised the issue of publicity of not being low key and of not wanting to make a fuss.

I responded with by referring to the Lord's impoverished start, His humble life and His constant witnessing on an individual basis.

Once again you respond with two typical responses.

You return to your own worldview which you continue to use as in 'I cannot see a real god doing this or that', as in ' I would also suggest that individual word of mouth ministry is a terribly inefficient way to spread the word, especially if the soul of you creation is at stake.

Then, again you introduce a diversion, such as this: Are you suggesting that humans are incapable of acting with humility and stoicism in the face of impending death?


Stick to the point and we can progress this debate.

The Christ of God who walked this good earth has personally touched the lives of countless millions of ordinary souls. That is the evidence.

[easty]

The Christ of God who walked this good earth has personally touched the lives of countless millions of ordinary souls. That is the evidence.

Nah, it isnae.

[ancienthibby]

Nah, it isnae.

Oh Yes it is!!

[Twa Cairpets]

No I'm sorry this just won't wash.
A preacher who doesn't want publicity? A "son of God" who wants to be low key? A saviour who doesn't want to make much of a fuss?

For the record this is your post that I responded to. You raised the issue of publicity of not being low key and of not wanting to make a fuss.

I responded with by referring to the Lord's impoverished start, His humble life and His constant witnessing on an individual basis.

Once again you respond with two typical responses.

I hope you are not being deliberately dissembling, but are just missing the point.

I had made the point that I found it astonishing that the son of God warranted nary a peep from contemporary chroniclers, and you responded with It was never meant to be an ancient version of razzmadazz reporting as we are infected without nowadays.

The point I made is that you cannot use "he ministered on a personal basis" as a reason to explain this glaring omission away, and that a preacher preaches. If he was humble, fine, it still doesn't take away the fact that you believe he was out for recruits. For no-one to have recorded any of the miracles, the trial, and specifically the resurrection and all the hoo-ha that surrounded that is almost beyond credibility.


You return to your own worldview which you continue to use as in 'I cannot see a real god doing this or that', as in ' I would also suggest that individual word of mouth ministry is a terribly inefficient way to spread the word, especially if the soul of you creation is at stake.

Of course I return to my worldview. Why the hell wouldn't I?
Well, do you think it is an efficient way to introduce the truth of the biblical God to humanity?


Then, again you introduce a diversion, such as this: Are you suggesting that humans are incapable of acting with humility and stoicism in the face of impending death?

Stick to the point and we can progress this debate.

It is not a diversion. Its a direct response to your comment about Jesus' tribulations after his trial. It was a meaningless point you made, and I responded to it. You throwing out what you perceive as facts about the general wonderfulness of Jesus doesn't add to the discussion.


The Christ of God who walked this good earth has personally touched the lives of countless millions of ordinary souls. That is the evidence.

Time after time you come up with this, and completely ignore the very obvious problem with this that has been posted before. Millions of Muslims believe their religion, as do Hindus, and Buddhists, and as did the Vikings in the Norse Gods, the Romans in Jupiter and the Oracles of Delphi with the Greek pantheon. All these millions of people had every much a devout belief in their God touching them personally as you do. Whatever you think, this is not evidence, unless you accept devout belief in Odin is evidence of his existence as well.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Twa, I'm really enjoying this thread from both sides, I can only ever see my self agreeing with your normally articulate self on the subject matter, but take bollocks it is out this thread and there is only one person folk can sensibly agree with.

[Twa Cairpets]

Twa, I'm really enjoying this thread from both sides, I can only ever see my self agreeing with your normally articulate self on the subject matter, but take bollocks it is out this thread and there is only one person folk can sensibly agree with.

Edited as suggested. I was irritated by ancients' post so fired out a response that wasn't all it should have been.

You supplied me with evidence that the post was flawed, and I changed my mind...:greengrin

[Bishop Hibee]

In this instance wiki is not reliable. It defines historicity in a very loose way. I'm not being awkward here - The fact is simply that there is no contemporary record of Jesus. This statement is indisputable.I've already said I think there probably was a human preacher, but there is zero evidence for his divinity.

I can't comment on you like quote, but you'd have to agree for the most part creationists are fairly dogmatic in their belief in the literal inerrancy of the bible.

Sorry I believe this entry on wiki is not only reliable but proves what you believe on the historicity of Jesus to be wrong. There is no contemporary account of the Greek philosopher Socrates either. Would you deny his existence? Again, you'd be against the vast majority of contemporary scholars if you do.

I actually don't agree that creationists are dogmatic in their interpretation of most of the bible. They pick and choose those bits that they believe to be true as all Christian denominations do. This in no way invalidates the wisdom of the parts that are not literally true, many chunks of which were never meant to read as such.

[Twa Cairpets]

Sorry I believe this entry on wiki is not only reliable but proves what you believe on the historicity of Jesus to be wrong. There is no contemporary account of the Greek philosopher Socrates either. Would you deny his existence? Again, you'd be against the vast majority of contemporary scholars if you do.
I promise you it's not wrong. You may argue over what constitutes evidence, but the bare bones of the matter is that there is no evidence. None. This isn't contentious, and scholars referencing the bible to prove the bible aren't applying acceptable rules of evidence, for me at any rate. The first extra-biblical mentions of anything to do with Jesus are Tacitus and Josephus, in fragmentary form and with no mention of anything miraculous. This is simply stating the case. I've said a couple of times that I personally suspect (without evidence) that there was a Jesus figure who started the movement, but I have absolutely no reason to believe he was divine or performed miracles. I'm not denying he existed - I am simply stating that you cannot state with any reasonable certainty that he did.

I find the Socrates example baffling. Why is this relevant? As it happens, there is some contemporary mention of him, so you're incorrect in your statement anyway, but it's irrelevant if Socrates did or didn't exist. If there's no evidence for him then I'm happy to say "ok, we've no proof", but as the article here http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Socrates_vs_Jesus points out, no-one is claiming absolute moral truths or spiritual guidance from Socrates.


I actually don't agree that creationists are dogmatic in their interpretation of most of the bible. They pick and choose those bits that they believe to be true as all Christian denominations do. This in no way invalidates the wisdom of the parts that are not literally true, many chunks of which were never meant to read as such.

Yep. You're right, but there is less allegory applied to make things fit with knowledge than there is with other denominations. "Earth made in 6 literal days, and is C.6,000 year sold. People created by God, Evolution false. End Of." The amount of things that have to be interpreted in an allegorical manner increase as one accepts the lack of evidence for the story.

If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, ultimately Jesus' sacrifice was pointless.
There was no flood - how do we read that allegorically?
If the OT was untrue in terms of much of the literal events described and characters portrayed, how does this square with Luke's genealogy of Jesus going back through, for example, David, Abraham and Noah? How can that possibly be read allegorically? It either is or it isn't true.
How do you interpret, for example 2 Kings 2:24, or Ezekiel 4:12 or Matthew 27:52-53. For every "allowance" that has to be made in interpretation "because this is a parable/allegory" or whatever, the potential of the of the bible to provide unequivocal truth is reduced dramatically.

[One Day Soon]

In this instance wiki is not reliable. It defines historicity in a very loose way. I'm not being awkward here - The fact is simply that there is no contemporary record of Jesus. This statement is indisputable.I've already said I think there probably was a human preacher, but there is zero evidence for his divinity.

I can't comment on you like quote, but you'd have to agree for the most part creationists are fairly dogmatic in their belief in the literal inerrancy of the bible.

What would you accept as contemporary evidence for his divinity?

[ancienthibby]

I hope you are not being deliberately dissembling, but are just missing the point.

I had made the point that I found it astonishing that the son of God warranted nary a peep from contemporary chroniclers, and you responded with It was never meant to be an ancient version of razzmadazz reporting as we are infected without nowadays.

The point I made is that you cannot use "he ministered on a personal basis" as a reason to explain this glaring omission away, and that a preacher preaches. If he was humble, fine, it still doesn't take away the fact that you believe he was out for recruits. For no-one to have recorded any of the miracles, the trial, and specifically the resurrection and all the hoo-ha that surrounded that is almost beyond credibility.



Of course I return to my worldview. Why the hell wouldn't I?
Well, do you think it is an efficient way to introduce the truth of the biblical God to humanity?



It is not a diversion. Its a direct response to your comment about Jesus' tribulations after his trial. It was a meaningless point you made, and I responded to it. You throwing out what you perceive as facts about the general wonderfulness of Jesus doesn't add to the discussion.



Time after time you come up with this, and completely ignore the very obvious problem with this that has been posted before. Millions of Muslims believe their religion, as do Hindus, and Buddhists, and as did the Vikings in the Norse Gods, the Romans in Jupiter and the Oracles of Delphi with the Greek pantheon. All these millions of people had every much a devout belief in their God touching them personally as you do. Whatever you think, this is not evidence, unless you accept devout belief in Odin is evidence of his existence as well.

Here we go again TC,

Another riposte from yourself that is based on your own worldview and again continues to recognise that when you engage with the divine Christ of Heaven, you can only apply your limited worldview.

We have had a number of debates over various themes over the years of this ilk and I have to say to you, that despite your protestations as to having read Holy Scripture, your grasp of that Scripture is shown to be by your own posts as virtually non-existent.

If you had grasped at all anything about the New Testament, then you would never have posted items such as these:

'A preacher who does not want publicity';

'A Son of God who wants to be low key';

'A Saviour who does not want to make much of a fuss';

Wrong; wrong; and wrong again;

You ask me why you should revert to your world view?

Quite simply, it does not work when you are considering the Divine God of Creation who became human in the presence of the Lord Jesus.

You have shown time and time again that you can only deal in your limited world of rationality.

Shed that and we can move forward.

[One Day Soon]

In this instance wiki is not reliable. It defines historicity in a very loose way. I'm not being awkward here - The fact is simply that there is no contemporary record of Jesus. This statement is indisputable.I've already said I think there probably was a human preacher, but there is zero evidence for his divinity.

I can't comment on you like quote, but you'd have to agree for the most part creationists are fairly dogmatic in their belief in the literal inerrancy of the bible.

And I'm not sure what your point is with this either, other than trying to throw some extra smoke on to the field of debate about whether Jesus can be regarded as divine by attempting to cast doubt on his existence. If you are accepting that he existed then the point on contemporary evidence seems pretty redundant.

[Twa Cairpets]

What would you accept as contemporary evidence for his divinity?

That's a good question.
The first thing would be to have evidence of existence - reference to his preaching by contemporary sources, a record of his trial maybe? Even a record of his crucifixion would be compelling, as would any of the events caused by his resurrection (Matthew 27:52-53 being a case in point).

As for divinity, that's tougher. A record by an observer of the miracles or the resurrection would add weight to the argument for sure, but I admit it would be hard for me to accept this as evidence for him being the son of God. Why? Darren Browne. How often have you watched him or Dynamo and thought WTF? How did he do that? There is also the possibility that if he did exist as a man, and truly believed he was the son of God, how would it be possible for a witness to decide if he was right or not?

I can't think offhand of any of the biblical miracles that would leave physical evidence, so I can't answer with a specific "that'd do it for me" for divinity. The proof standards for basic confirmation of a historical Jesus are a lot lower.

However, if someone was to find, say, a rabbit fossil in the Cretaceous, it would at a stroke debunk evolution and lead one down the route of creation - that would be compelling evidence.

[Twa Cairpets]

And I'm not sure what your point is with this either, other than trying to throw some extra smoke on to the field of debate about whether Jesus can be regarded as divine by attempting to cast doubt on his existence. If you are accepting that he existed then the point on contemporary evidence seems pretty redundant.

I hope I'm not throwing smoke. That's not my intention.

If he did exist, he may or may not have been divine. My point is that if he did exist and was divine, as per the bible, it seems to me to be astonishing that there is no historical record of him. His claims as a preacher (being the son of God) and his reported actions during his ministry - the miracles, the resurrection etc - were not, according to scripture, normal events. The lack of record therefore must cast doubt on his divine existence. It is more likely that an entirely human, but charismatic, preacher went on to be the basis for a cult that grew into a religion.

We've not even covered the lack of any evidence surrounding his birth, like the fact there was no census, the timescales reported are wrong with reference to Quirinius and Herod, there is no record of the slaughter of the innocents by Herod in Matthew 2:16 etc. Surely there would be a record of a King slaughtering all the children under 2 in Bethlehem? the fact that there is not must cast doubt on the veracity of the rest of the story.

[Twa Cairpets]

Here we go again TC,
Another riposte from yourself that is based on your own worldview and again continues to recognise that when you engage with the divine Christ of Heaven, you can only apply your limited worldview.
We have had a number of debates over various themes over the years of this ilk and I have to say to you, that despite your protestations as to having read Holy Scripture, your grasp of that Scripture is shown to be by your own posts as virtually non-existent.
If you had grasped at all anything about the New Testament, then you would never have posted items such as these:
'A preacher who does not want publicity';
'A Son of God who wants to be low key';
'A Saviour who does not want to make much of a fuss';
Wrong; wrong; and wrong again;
You ask me why you should revert to your world view?
Quite simply, it does not work when you are considering the Divine God of Creation who became human in the presence of the Lord Jesus.
You have shown time and time again that you can only deal in your limited world of rationality.
Shed that and we can move forward.

You want me to become irrational in order to engage with you? I think we'll agree on that. I think what you're saying is that in order to argue against the existence of God/Jesus etc, I have to first accept that he's real, and from that point you'll be happy to discuss it? Isn't that a bit bonkers? I could take slight offence that you view being rational as being a limited world view, but I prefer to raise a quizzical eyebrow at that implication.

But apart from that, again you're having a little preach at me rather than addressing any of the points I raised, or deliberately fixating on something that I have since explained, and not actually addressed any of the points raised.

Do you accept that your appeal to popularity is not valid evidence for his existence, divine or not?
Do you accept that there is no evidence of Jesus having existed?
Do you accept that his alleged humility in his trial is nothing that indicates he was divine, if he did exist?
Do you accept that it is perhaps surprising that a preacher proclaiming himself to be son of God and performing miracles warrants no mention in contemporary history?
Do you think it odd - if only from a human perspective - that the chosen method of divine revelation through Jesus was carried out in the way that has been shown to be, for 2000 years, incredibly fraught and largely inefficient in touching souls?

[One Day Soon]

I hope I'm not throwing smoke. That's not my intention.
I think you are, at least on this point.

If he did exist, he may or may not have been divine. My point is that if he did exist and was divine, as per the bible, it seems to me to be astonishing that there is no historical record of him. His claims as a preacher (being the son of God) and his reported actions during his ministry - the miracles, the resurrection etc - were not, according to scripture, normal events. The lack of record therefore must cast doubt on his divine existence. It is more likely that an entirely human, but charismatic, preacher went on to be the basis for a cult that grew into a religion.
That, with respect, is an articulate mixture of irrelevance and nonsense. You should dispense with the 'if he did exist' since you have already stated that you think he did. Why must "the lack of record therefore must cast doubt on his divine existence"? That assertion has no basis whatsoever. All you are doing is inferring your preferred interpretation of what happened.

We've not even covered the lack of any evidence surrounding his birth, like the fact there was no census, the timescales reported are wrong with reference to Quirinius and Herod, there is no record of the slaughter of the innocents by Herod in Matthew 2:16 etc. Surely there would be a record of a King slaughtering all the children under 2 in Bethlehem? the fact that there is not must cast doubt on the veracity of the rest of the story.
You seem to expect some kind of contemporary encyclopedia of events from a time when very few people could read or write and when, in fact, the capacity to do so was not a pleasant utility for learning and development but a political weapon of control wielded by the powerful. History, as they say, is written by the victors.

[One Day Soon]

You want me to become irrational in order to engage with you? I think we'll agree on that. I think what you're saying is that in order to argue against the existence of God/Jesus etc, I have to first accept that he's real, and from that point you'll be happy to discuss it? Isn't that a bit bonkers? I could take slight offence that you view being rational as being a limited world view, but I prefer to raise a quizzical eyebrow at that implication.
Whereas you want him to become entirely rational in order to engage with you?

But apart from that, again you're having a little preach at me rather than addressing any of the points I raised, or deliberately fixating on something that I have since explained, and not actually addressed any of the points raised.

Do you accept that your appeal to popularity is not valid evidence for his existence, divine or not?
Do you accept that there is no evidence of Jesus having existed?
Do you accept that his alleged humility in his trial is nothing that indicates he was divine, if he did exist?
Do you accept that it is perhaps surprising that a preacher proclaiming himself to be son of God and performing miracles warrants no mention in contemporary history?
Do you think it odd - if only from a human perspective - that the chosen method of divine revelation through Jesus was carried out in the way that has been shown to be, for 2000 years, incredibly fraught and largely inefficient in touching souls? No, not at all. What would you prefer, a Facebook page?

[Twa Cairpets]

That, with respect, is an articulate mixture of irrelevance and nonsense. You should dispense with the 'if he did exist' since you have already stated that you think he did. Why must "the lack of record therefore must cast doubt on his divine existence"? That assertion has no basis whatsoever. All you are doing is inferring your preferred interpretation of what happened.

Obviously not as articulate as I wanted it to be or it wouldn't have come over as nonsense!

What I wanted to say was that the chances of a genuinely divine Jesus, doing what the bible says he did, leaving no apparent record at the time is harder to credit than an entirely human, but charismatic preacher active at the time leaving no record. I entirely accept that it is my interpretation, but it does seem to make some sense to me.


You seem to expect some kind of contemporary encyclopedia of events from a time when very few people could read or write and when, in fact, the capacity to do so was not a pleasant utility for learning and development but a political weapon of control wielded by the powerful. History, as they say, is written by the victors.
No, I'm not wanting that level of proof. The record keeping of the Romans was, for the most part in that area and time, fairly extensive. I totally accept that history is not necessarily objective in its record keeping, and I've gone out of my way to acknowledge that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but the fact remains that there isn't anything to support a historical Jesus. The NT record of his life is far too contradictory and error strewn to - by my lights anyway - to have any confidence in as any type of historical record, and despite ancienthibby's protestations that I am simply being a narrow minded rationalist, unless there's a reason to think something is true I'll plump on the side of being skeptical.

[ancienthibby]

Obviously not as articulate as I wanted it to be or it wouldn't have come over as nonsense!

What I wanted to say was that the chances of a genuinely divine Jesus, doing what the bible says he did, leaving no apparent record at the time is harder to credit than an entirely human, but charismatic preacher active at the time leaving no record. I entirely accept that it is my interpretation, but it does seem to make some sense to me.


No, I'm not wanting that level of proof. The record keeping of the Romans was, for the most part in that area and time, fairly extensive. I totally accept that history is not necessarily objective in its record keeping, and I've gone out of my way to acknowledge that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but the fact remains that there isn't anything to support a historical Jesus. The NT record of his life is far too contradictory and error strewn to - by my lights anyway - to have any confidence in as any type of historical record, and despite ancienthibee's protestations that I am simply being a narrow minded rationalist, unless there's a reason to think something is true I'll plump on the side of being skeptical.

So far as I am aware he has never been a participant in this thread. You should know your correspondents by now, TC!:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets
You want me to become irrational in order to engage with you? I think we'll agree on that. I think what you're saying is that in order to argue against the existence of God/Jesus etc, I have to first accept that he's real, and from that point you'll be happy to discuss it? Isn't that a bit bonkers? I could take slight offence that you view being rational as being a limited world view, but I prefer to raise a quizzical eyebrow at that implication.
Whereas you want him to become entirely rational in order to engage with you?

But apart from that, again you're having a little preach at me rather than addressing any of the points I raised, or deliberately fixating on something that I have since explained, and not actually addressed any of the points raised.

Do you accept that your appeal to popularity is not valid evidence for his existence, divine or not?
Do you accept that there is no evidence of Jesus having existed?
Do you accept that his alleged humility in his trial is nothing that indicates he was divine, if he did exist?
Do you accept that it is perhaps surprising that a preacher proclaiming himself to be son of God and performing miracles warrants no mention in contemporary history?
Do you think it odd - if only from a human perspective - that the chosen method of divine revelation through Jesus was carried out in the way that has been shown to be, for 2000 years, incredibly fraught and largely inefficient in touching souls?
No, not at all. What would you prefer, a Facebook page?

Earlier in the thread I rather politely asked Ancient this:

"Imagine for a minute the possibility that the bible is a man-made construct. I know you don't believe this but humour me.
If you were to write a sentence that was to give your fledgling religion easy legitimacy with your believers, wouldn't you say "blessed are those who have not yet seen and yet have believed?"

To which he replied:

Thanks kindly, TC, but that's one invitation I cannot take up! To do so would be a betrayal of Who I believe in!

Now, I get reprimanded for - apparently - doggedly sticking to this narrow minded view, but it's ok for ancient not to even consider the alternative because it would constitute some kind of internal blasphemy? Don't you think this is something of double standard?

Whether or not people choose to believe it, because I find this a very interesting subject, I spend a lot of timing considering the other view. So yes, it would nice for ancienthibby to apply rationality to some of his answers and not just reply with scripture or are a variant on "we cannot understand Gods ways".

As for the second point, yes, facebook would probably be a good way, but I think he'd find twitter a little more effective these days. But there is a serious point here. An omniscient, omnipresent God has never managed to get above around a 30-40% of everyone who's ever lived to believe in him, and his one foray into the relatively modern world was restricted to a very short ministry by a single man performing what would have to be described as fairly low key miracles in the bronze age middle east. This isn't being disrespectful, this is a fact, and it's one that must call into question if the supernatural background to the story is real or entirely man made.

[One Day Soon]

Obviously not as articulate as I wanted it to be or it wouldn't have come over as nonsense!

What I wanted to say was that the chances of a genuinely divine Jesus, doing what the bible says he did, leaving no apparent record at the time is harder to credit than an entirely human, but charismatic preacher active at the time leaving no record. I entirely accept that it is my interpretation, but it does seem to make some sense to me.

It shouldn't, it would have taken a brave - not to say suicidal - Roman to write down that this bloke they had just crucified was in fact the son of God and then list his miracles. In fact honouring him with any kind of record at all would have been asking for a crucifix of your own. I think you are projecting current perspectives backward 2000 years and then being disappointed that what could reasonably be expected by today's standards does not exist - or has not yet been discovered - from then. Not all knowledge and evidence arrives all at once after all - the earth has existed for millions of years and yet even now we have little conclusive proof as to how the universe came to be or works.


No, I'm not wanting that level of proof. The record keeping of the Romans was, for the most part in that area and time, fairly extensive. I totally accept that history is not necessarily objective in its record keeping, and I've gone out of my way to acknowledge that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but the fact remains that there isn't anything to support a historical Jesus. The NT record of his life is far too contradictory and error strewn to - by my lights anyway - to have any confidence in as any type of historical record, and despite ancienthibee's protestations that I am simply being a narrow minded rationalist, unless there's a reason to think something is true I'll plump on the side of being skeptical.

If the above is true, why do you believe he existed? Apart of course from the fact that contesting his divinity, disputing the existence of God and agitating fiercely about people who hold a faith seems to occupy a truly massive proportion of your time on .net. Now that does constitute some kind of contemporary evidence. :wink:

[One Day Soon]

Earlier in the thread I rather politely asked Ancient this:

"Imagine for a minute the possibility that the bible is a man-made construct. I know you don't believe this but humour me.
If you were to write a sentence that was to give your fledgling religion easy legitimacy with your believers, wouldn't you say "blessed are those who have not yet seen and yet have believed?"

To which he replied:

Thanks kindly, TC, but that's one invitation I cannot take up! To do so would be a betrayal of Who I believe in!

Now, I get reprimanded for - apparently - doggedly sticking to this narrow minded view, but it's ok for ancient not to even consider the alternative because it would constitute some kind of internal blasphemy? Don't you think this is something of double standard?
Not really. You want him to be rationalist when discussing something (his faith) which - by definiton - it is impossible to rationalise. If there are double standards here then he is not the only one deploying them.

Whether or not people choose to believe it, because I find this a very interesting subject, I spend a lot of timing considering the other view. So yes, it would nice for ancienthibby to apply rationality to some of his answers and not just reply with scripture or are a variant on "we cannot understand Gods ways".
TC, if there is a God, then by definition "we cannot understand God's ways"

As for the second point, yes, facebook would probably be a good way, but I think he'd find twitter a little more effective these days. But there is a serious point here. An omniscient, omnipresent God has never managed to get above around a 30-40% of everyone who's ever lived to believe in him, and his one foray into the relatively modern world was restricted to a very short ministry by a single man performing what would have to be described as fairly low key miracles in the bronze age middle east. This isn't being disrespectful, this is a fact, and it's one that must call into question if the supernatural background to the story is real or entirely man made.
If the omniscient, omnipresent God was implementing a divine marketing strategy which was achieving a 100% believer rate it would be definition be self-defeating. What is the value of a believer if literally everyone is a believer? And I'm guessing the counter argument would be that it isn't God who has a 30 to 40% hit rate, it is his entirely imperfect human followers who's on the ground delivery is polling at this level. The miracles would have been far from low key in the context of the bronze age middle east. I don't think anything you have written above calls into question the supernatural background. Other things might,but not the relationship between membership rate, the number of sons put into play, the number and quality of miracles or the point of historical intervention. There's no QED there.

[Twa Cairpets]

It shouldn't, it would have taken a brave - not to say suicidal - Roman to write down that this bloke they had just crucified was in fact the son of God and then list his miracles. In fact honouring him with any kind of record at all would have been asking for a crucifix of your own. I think you are projecting current perspectives backward 2000 years and then being disappointed that what could reasonably be expected by today's standards does not exist - or has not yet been discovered - from then. Not all knowledge and evidence arrives all at once after all - the earth has existed for millions of years and yet even now we have little conclusive proof as to how the universe came to be or works.

Why would it be honouring him to record, for example, that a man proclaiming to be king of the Jews was put to death for blasphemy? You might take the view that this would be a good thing to record and proclaim as a deterrent? You still also have the problems of the biblical text surrounding Jesus as being totally missing - again I offer the slaughter of the innocents by Herod, and the rising from the grave of the holy after the resurrection. These are huge events by anyones standards surely, and it is inconceivable they weren't recorded.


If the above is true, why do you believe he existed?Apart of course from the fact that contesting his divinity, disputing the existence of God and agitating fiercely about people who hold a faith seems to occupy a truly massive proportion of your time on .net. Now that does constitute some kind of contemporary evidence.

I said I suspect he probably did exist as a human, but I've nothing to back that up. That's the extent of it.

As for the last sentence - any need? Really? Even with the smiley. I post on a subject that I find interesting and important, and you have a snide dig. Agitating fiercely? - I hold strong views on this, and try, for the most part, to be polite while not sugar coating my position. It might be a good way for you to engage also.

[Twa Cairpets]

If the omniscient, omnipresent God was implementing a divine marketing strategy which was achieving a 100% believer rate it would be definition be self-defeating. What is the value of a believer if literally everyone is a believer? And I'm guessing the counter argument would be that it isn't God who has a 30 to 40% hit rate, it is his entirely imperfect human followers who's on the ground delivery is polling at this level. The miracles would have been far from low key in the context of the bronze age middle east. I don't think anything you have written above calls into question the supernatural background. Other things might,but not the relationship between membership rate, the number of sons put into play, the number and quality of miracles or the point of historical intervention. There's no QED there.

So you think God doesn't want everyone to believe in him? That's a bit at odds with "he loves us all", isn't it? ancienthibee said the same earlier and I find that truly bizarre.

And as for the other point - Huge big muckle QED. You're God, and you want to save your creation by sacrificing yourself/your son to yourself while convincing people that to get everlasting life they have to accept aforementioned sacrifice as a personal saviour. And you do this, mostly, by one-to-one ministry and a book riddled with inconsistency that causes war, schism, torture and debate on Hibs.net.

If God does indeed exist, I would entirely agree he moves in deeply mysterious ways.

[ancienthibby]

You want me to become irrational in order to engage with you?
No. I was merely suggesting that you need a different thinking cap on when trying to understand faith.

I think we'll agree on that. I think what you're saying is that in order to argue against the existence of God/Jesus etc, I have to first accept that he's real, and from that point you'll be happy to discuss it?
No, I am not encouraging you to argue against God/Jesus, I'm just trying to get you to consider other ways of thinking that will help you in your own deliberations. It's quite obvious (as you say in another thread) that you are well interested in this subject and it's just my view that your understanding will grow if you park your rational paradigm before considering Scriptural matters.

Isn't that a bit bonkers? I could take slight offence that you view being rational as being a limited world view, but I prefer to raise a quizzical eyebrow at that implication.
No offence was intended, TC, I was just suggesting that if you maintain a rational stance when addressing these matters then your understanding of the matter will be inhibited.

But apart from that, again you're having a little preach at me rather than addressing any of the points I raised, or deliberately fixating on something that I have since explained, and not actually addressed any of the points raised.

Do you accept that your appeal to popularity is not valid evidence for his existence, divine or not?
I think it is valid, because the validation comes from the spread of the Gospel and the witnesses responses. If you have time, try and read the Acts of the Apostles (written by Luke (a disciple) and featuring Paul (a convert).

Do you accept that there is no evidence of Jesus having existed?
Again, it may not be the evidence that your rationality would require, but the spread of the Gospel person by person as Paul testifies is convincing for me.

Do you accept that his alleged humility in his trial is nothing that indicates he was divine, if he did exist
Of course, He was created divine and went through the trial and death on the Cross as such. Re a reference in one of your other posts, I am not aware of an prophet, Allah or Muhamed going to the cross as a sacrifice for the peoples' sin.

Do you accept that it is perhaps surprising that a preacher proclaiming himself to be son of God and performing miracles warrants no mention in contemporary history?
This harks back again to your understanding of Scripture. There are so many examples from His lowly birth in a stable to a teenage girl, to his humble life, to His entire life that He came to 'turn the world upside down' so that 'proclamation of self' could never be included. Then again, contemporaries such as Luke, Paul and His own brother James recorded their experiences of Him and His life.

Do you think it odd - if only from a human perspective - that the chosen method of divine revelation through Jesus was carried out in the way that has been shown to be, for 2000 years, incredibly fraught and largely inefficient in touching souls.
One of the over-arching principles of the Christian gospel is that of the 'still, small voice of God.' That voice is in the soul of all of us. Mostly our listening is inadequate....

[Twa Cairpets]

Thanks for your answers. I'd like to follow up on some if I may.

.Do you accept that your appeal to popularity is not valid evidence for his existence, divine or not?
I think it is valid, because the validation comes from the spread of the Gospel and the witnesses responses. If you have time, try and read the Acts of the Apostles (written by Luke (a disciple) and Paul (a convert).

I will have a look again at these - its been a while. However, could you explain to me why the spread of Islam and the responses from those touched by the spirit of Mohammed are not equal in validity to thise touched by your religion.


Do you accept that there is no evidence of Jesus having existed?
Again, it may not be the evidence that your rationality would require, but the spread of the Gospel person by person as Paul testifies is convincing for me.
That's not what I asked. I asked if you accept that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. It might just be the case that you can say "yes, there is no historical evidence but I have absolute faith", but I hope if nothing else on this thread you'd agree that there is nothing that a historian would regard as evidence.


Do you accept that his alleged humility in his trial is nothing that indicates he was divine, if he did exist
Of course, He was created divine and went through the trial and death on the Cross as such. Re a reference in one of your other posts, I am not aware of an prophet, Allah or Muhamed going to the cross as a sacrifice for the peoples' sin.
Why does that matter? there are martyrs to every cause, I was pointing out that your reference to his humility is an entirely human attribute - it doesn't lend itself to the argument of his divinity.


Do you accept that it is perhaps surprising that a preacher proclaiming himself to be son of God and performing miracles warrants no mention in contemporary history?
This harks back again to your understanding of Scripture. There are so many examples from His lowly birth in a stable to a teenage girl, to his humble life, to His entire life that He came to 'turn the world upside down' so that 'proclamation of self' could never be included. Then again, contemporaries such as Luke, Paul and His own brother James recorded their experiences of Him and His life.
No, it doesnt. I'm won't claim to be a biblical scholar, but I'm asking if from an entirely human perspective that it is odd that he apparently left no imprint in his own time


Do you think it odd - if only from a human perspective - that the chosen method of divine revelation through Jesus was carried out in the way that has been shown to be, for 2000 years, incredibly fraught and largely inefficient in touching souls.
One of the over-arching principles of the Christian gospel is that of the 'still, small voice of God.' That voice is in the soul of all of us. Mostly our listening is inadequate...
You're answering this from entirely within your own framework, a thing you accuse me of doing. Even if you're right, it is, from a human perspective, a very strange way to deliver your Word. Especially if 2/3 of the planet have little interest in or knowledge of the bible and what it is. It is, from our viewpoint, inefficient at best. I know God is supposed to work in mysterious ways, but if one of the commandments is "to have no other God before me", isn't it a bit much to expect people to follow this commandment if they absolutely zero access to your teaching? To my knowledge, there has never been anyone, ever, who has claimed to have heard the voice of Jesus/God out of the blue with no prior knowledge of his story.