What was the area code on that call?

(February 7, 2018 at 1:30 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 7, 2018 at 1:23 am)Godscreated Wrote: I want even bother trying to explain to you what hard things can come into a Christians life. I will say this to you, we have God almighty to lean on when troubles over whelm us.

GC

No, do tell. Are you being persecuted for being a Christian? Or you feel sexually inhibited?

Neither, is that what you experienced and ran away like a coward?

GC

(February 8, 2018 at 2:37 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(February 7, 2018 at 1:30 am)Grandizer Wrote: No, do tell. Are you being persecuted for being a Christian? Or you feel sexually inhibited?

Neither, is that what you experienced and ran away like a coward?

GC

Ran away from what? An invisible boogeyman that I have no reason to be afraid of?

What do you experience then as a Christian that is so troublesome?

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book

Yes, they Gospels are such historical accounts written in cooperation with real witnesses and Jesus's apostles that they couldn't agree when was Jesus born (Mathew says during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE while Luke says nine years after king Herod's death); they couldn't agree if Jesus, Mary, and Joseph go to Egypt or Nazareth; some said that Jesus baptized people (like Matthew and Luke said he did while John in 4:2 wrote "Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.")
I mean if they were really with him would they know what did Jesus did after his baptism? Because Mark said he went to the desert to be tempted by Satan while John says he went to wedding at Cana. Or you would expect then to be consistent in recording where Jesus  preached his first sermon because Matthew says it was on a mountain while Luke says on the plain - I mean one said he went up while the other said down. They give completely different reasons of why Jesus was arrested.

I mean it's such a "historical" record that they couldn't agree of when Jesus ascended to heaven because Luke and Mark say same day while John remembers that he and the rest of the apostles hanged out with Jesus for eight more days and in Acts it's written Jesus flew into the sky after 40 days!! And of course they don't agree how many of them were there or where it was, some claim it was in Bethany while others on Mount Olivet and some say it was from the apartment in Jerusalem.

So to call Gospels a historically accurate account is to be oblivious of what historical account means or simply a liar.

I get what you're doing if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes a religion.

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(February 7, 2018 at 7:13 pm)pocaracas Wrote: You are aware that there were many more gospels than the ones that made it into the bible you have today, right?
What disqualified some?

Could the ones we do have nowadays have been cooked up from a similar social environment as the others, but they have the merit of conveying a similar enough message that they could be bound in one tome?

Every one would have its own reasons--which are not hard to understand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non...al_gospels). The first and second century Christians identified the four we have as authoritative. There was never any controversy over them from the beginning. Deciding on the canon was a formality--the list had been in use for hundreds of years already. 

You say that from the point of view of the "victor" account.
There were many competing gospels and writings and the people who believed in them would also be Christians.

Also, the list had regional variations.... Some places had a few more, some had others... the canon was the formality that combined the common core from all and did away with anything that wasn't in agreement.

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote:

Quote:The problems begin when the texts we have look more like tales, than eyewitness accounts... even if the author claims that he got those tales from real witnesses.
Combine this with the knack they had to make up whole gospels and the credibility factor lowers quite substantially.

I don't doubt that such messianic stories were floating around in the population.
I do doubt if they represented any actual witnessing of events, or if they were just fantastic tales mangled with bits and pieces from regular life.

I have used this before, so this is not directed at you, but is perhaps a helpful answer nevertheless. 

Here is an inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)

Agreed. Some person, possibly a teacher of the "law of god", likely preached in the region and went through all that.

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry

If those characters existed, as disciples of the teacher, as students, yes.

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: c. They presided over the early church

Don't know... As far as I know, there are accounts of Peter going to Rome, but nothing trustworthy. There is the tale of the disagreement of James and Peter, which shows how non-unified those first witnesses were.

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: d. This early church instructed Paul (for a number of years before he started his own efforts)

On the road to Damascus... go on google maps, see how the road (that doesn't go through the mountains) from Jerusalem to Damascus passes extremely close to the Qumran site...
On the old texts found at that site, you have the description of a monastic society that follows closely some of the main precepts of Jesus' preaching - helping the poor, having no wealth for yourself... and is likely the very origin of John the Baptist... oh and all that seems to date from 2 centuries BC. The concept of the teacher is there. The teacher who battles a force of evil.
Leads one to wonder what did Paul find, but did not say explicitly.

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)

Sure, if you claim that Paul was the early church.

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels

This I'm curious... what themes?

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day

And whoever wrote it got his info from?... Jesus' mom?

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)

Unsure... the earliest dates we have go to the 60's, right?
That would be pushing the average life expectancy back then...

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book

Could be...

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.

The several early churches accepted the canon gospels and others. Each church accepting their own set, some acquiring copies from others and coming to accept those as well.

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)

I'm no expert, but I have read people claim that Paul was a somewhat drastic departure from the previous understanding of Christianity.

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

I have no problem accepting that a teacher or a particular cult of Yahweh existed, a cult that preached a simple life, devoted to helping others, while providing a more inclusive interpretation of the old laws.
I do have a huge problem accepting that this person did any miracle... those are most likely, later additions to make the story more impressive.

(February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: Before you jump all over some of the statements above, please realize 1) you do not have proof against any of them (finding someone to agree with you is not proof) and 2) it is inductive reasoning and therefore it is not claiming the list is proof of anything--it is only claiming the inference is reasonable. It is NOT a deductive argument which claims fact, fact, therefore fact. So it is a matter of opinion whether you think the list supports the conclusion or not.

Haha! I jumped all over them! Now what?

(February 7, 2018 at 1:21 pm)possibletarian Wrote:

(February 7, 2018 at 9:24 am)Little Rik Wrote: I rather said...............Science tell us that so many terrible diseases in humans come from animal eating so God or no God this is totally irrelevant. All you do is to rely on what science tell us.
If of course science is correct then this also go hand in hand with God...............

Then why was god so stupid in giving us permission to eat meat ?
It seems science is way more knowledgable than god

Your comment could not be more foolish.  
God also give us the sun.
If you look straight at the sun with your naked eyes for sometime in a clear day you may even go blind.
God doesn't give the sun, the meat the uranium or anything else to get sick.
It is all up to you to make a positive judgment whether something is good or bad or how we should use what we got in order to benefit or suffer from it.  

God never give any permission to eat meat or to get sick in any other way.
Religious people may not agree on meat eating but that is their interpretation of what God supposed to have said.
As far as I am concern God gave us the free will so we can choose what we like and in doing this we may either benefit or suffer from those decisions.  

(February 8, 2018 at 9:23 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(February 7, 2018 at 1:21 pm)possibletarian Wrote: Then why was god so stupid in giving us permission to eat meat ?
It seems science is way more knowledgable than god

Your comment could not be more foolish.  
God also give us the sun.
If you look straight at the sun with your naked eyes for sometime in a clear day you may even go blind.
God doesn't give the sun, the meat the uranium or anything else to get sick.
It is all up to you to make a positive judgment whether something is good or bad or how we should use what we got in order to benefit or suffer from it.  

God never give any permission to eat meat or to get sick in any other way.
Religious people may not agree on meat eating but that is their interpretation of what God supposed to have said.
As far as I am concern God gave us the free will so we can choose what we like and in doing this we may either benefit or suffer from those decisions.  

So the bible is wrong, then.

Glad you agree.

(February 7, 2018 at 10:48 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(February 7, 2018 at 10:19 pm)SteveII Wrote: No, there is no logical reason that the physical universe/cosmos/multiverse exists necessarily.

This is simply not true at all.   Quite the opposite, in fact.  The universe existing necessarily is the only logical explanation, IMO. 

Quote:Necessarily' means "could not have been otherwise".

correct.

Quote:We can all conceive of a state of affairs (a possible world) where nothing at all exists

We could conceive of that world, sure.  But it wouldn’t be nothing.  Nothing cannot “be”, or, “have been” any type of world, or any kind of thing, lol.  Absolute nothingness is a logically incoherent concept, try as we might.  Any “state of affairs” would not be nothing.  It would be some kind of state...with affairs.  ‘Absolute nothing’, is simply an expression of the human mind attempting to comprehend, ‘not any of this’. 

By admitting that we could logically conceive of both a possible world where we have our universe (obviously) and a possible world where it did not exist means precisely that the universe does not 'necessarily' exist. I address 'nothing' below.

Quote:

Quote:Since we can conceive of both possible worlds as being broadly logically possible

We may instinctively attempt to conceive of “nothing” as a way to maintain logical continuity within this ‘cause and effect’ type of experience we’re used to, but “nothing”, described as any kind of thing, is by definition something, not nothing. And, non-existence, by definition, cannot exist.  

Ya’ll get any of that?  😝

In philosophy, 'nothing' (along with nobody, nowhere, none, etc.) are terms of universal negation. All you are doing is playing games with a word that grammatically is a pronoun and making it into a noun. If I had nothing for lunch today, I do not mean that I ate something and it was nothing. If I saw nobody in the office, I do not mean I saw somebody called nobody. 

You are propagating a silly argument that only exists in the world of the atheist echo chamber. Go ahead, find a serious philosopher who has written on the somethingness of nothingness.

(February 8, 2018 at 1:37 am)Godscreated Wrote: In my mind and soul/heart. I do not have to prove God to you, God hasn't ever called anyone to do so, it is God's job to show you He is real, it's up to you to desire this.

Well unfortunately (your) god is very poor at his job he does not seem to be convincing many.
As for desire, why would i 'desire' to believe especially now that i see through the religious scam ?

Quote:God of coarse. I haven't the evidence you require, God isn't going to give you physical evidence either. He will give you the evidence you need if you want it.

Well fair enough, you don't have evidence if there is no physical evidence, then what kind of evidence is there that couldn't easily be attributed to some other means ?.. Almost as if, it's all in the mind.

Quote:Clever with the words as atheist like to do to skirt around the subject. Let's say this, your belief is that God is not real, thus a belief system, small and unfounded but a belief ststem nevertheless.

No need to be clever with words here, it's really simple, to lack belief in something cannot be a belief.

Quote:Yes plenty, as I've said God has given me much evidence of His reality and as I said it was meant for me because I asked. Oh yes it is a claim. I do not know anyone who has seen those things or claimed they have.

But can you show that evidence to anyone else, if not then of what use is it, outside your own beliefs and mind ?

Quote:What would your default position be if someone said they had invisible, unprovable unicorns in their back garden, but that you couldn't prove they were just in his mind, and you hadn't provided a shred of evidence. ?  You can apply that kind of stupidity to anything.

Quote:I haven't said anything close to that and what you posted above is what's stupid. You and the other atheist here like to play the if game, it's a waste of time because it's not something likely to happen to anyone. I will say this though how do you know an invisible unicorn is in your back yard if you haven't seen it, invisible things are difficult for anyone to see.

Yes but you are claiming a god for whom you admit there is no evidence outside of your own mind, and you own experience (which is interpreted by your own mind), so we have no reason to think it exists elsewhere. As for how would know about the invisible unicorn, of course you wouldn't that's the very point being made.

Quote:  Yeah, like many here do, going to psychiatrist who have different answers for different people, saying what ever might fit the time and situation. You are calling on that belief system again by claiming you know there's no God, and yet you haven't provided one ounce of evidence there's not one. 

 You never believed as I do, if you had you would not deny the living God. Guess what no one duped me or even tried to get me to believe, I came to it because God called me. Oh yes I was taken to church as a child but no one ever pressured me into believing. The delusion you live with is that your belief system is right and you have no proof it's right, neither physical or spiritual.

Of course I can't provide evidence there is no god, just like you cannot disprove all the other gods people claim, but we can look at the world and see things have natural causes. Your god has gone from the god who makes mountains tremble and seas roar to the god who whimpers in peoples minds.

As a Christian I would have said (more or less) the same things as you, I was as absolute in my faith as you claim to be, and no not believing there is a god is still not a belief system, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Stop being deluded, be sober and look at reality, then you will see that the freedom you have been duped to rejoice in, simply is not freedom at all.

(February 7, 2018 at 11:24 pm)possibletarian Wrote:

(February 7, 2018 at 10:48 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: We may instinctively attempt to conceive of “nothing” as a way to maintain logical continuity within this ‘cause and effect’ type of existence we’re used to, but “nothing”, described as any kind of thing, is by definition, something, not nothing.

Ya’ll get any of that?  😝

Yes it's simple, nothing is not a thing and therefore is not a possible state of affairs. nothing is not an alternative to something.

Actually, that is exactly what 'nothing' is. 

Quote:Nothing is a concept denoting the absence of something, and is associated with nothingness.[1] In nontechnical uses, nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest, value, relevance, or significance.[1] Nothingness is the state of being nothing,[2] the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

noth·ing
ˈnəTHiNG/
pronoun

1. 1.
   not anything; no single thing.
   "I said nothing"
   synonyms:
   not a thing, not anything, nil, zero, naught/nought; More