Why Christianity?

[Ravenshire]

I'm sure they would also see as little point as I do in that, given the level of interaction you already demonstrate.

And please refrain from winking at me, if you don't mind; I'm not Catholic myself.

If by "interaction" you simply mean trading insults, no.

But I'm always happy to engage in a discussion when someone has something substantive to say.

Except when someone asks a question you can't quote mine an answer for.

[Randy Carson]

Man, it's been forever since I had to multi-quote a single post. I feel old.

That might simply be a reflection of the lack of serious posts in this forum. Doesn't take multi-posting to respond to most folks here.

To which post and question are you responding?

The OP. Sorry for the confusion, but typically if I'm not quoting individual posts in a thread you can usually assume I'm responding to the OP.

Noted. Thanks.

Hardly. EVERYONE is biased; the question is whether you are aware of your bias or not. The authors of the gospels WERE biased, but then, so are the authors of textbooks about biology or the origin of the universe. What matters, Tori, is whether you can recognize the bias (yours and theirs) and sort the facts from the fiction, so to speak. Professional historians do this all the time, and yet, they have no problem with accepting the gospels are historical documents which provide important information about the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

When I talk evidence from unbiased sources I mean something that can hold up under scrutiny. The longer it holds up and doesn't contradict itself, the more likely that it's true. I mean, there was a time we thought the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth. Then it was proposed that the Earth was actually round and that was proven to be true beyond personal bias since we can actually see the Earth and how it's shaped. That doesn't stop people from still claiming the world is flat, but they're not taken the least bit seriously because of all the overwhelming evidence against them.

Fair enough.

Hmmm...if you were sitting on a jury listening to a murder trial, you might determine in your mind that the evidence presented by the prosecutor had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. But would this mean that you knew with absolute certitude that the person on trial had committed the crime? Or would it simply mean that the probability that the defendant was guilty had reached the level of being much more probable than his innocence?

Is our understanding of Christianity any different? Aren't we making a decision about what we believe to be more probable than not?

Except, Christianity isn't anymore probable than all the other religions out there. It's on the same exact footing of probability.

Um...no. The EARLIEST writings about Buddha, for example, are dated about 600 years AFTER his death. With Jesus, we have a proto-creed (1 Cor. 15) that can be reasonably dated to AD 35 or so. There is NO parallel to the level of information we have about Jesus in any other ancient religion. As for more recent religions such as Mormonism and Islam, they fail to persuade on other grounds.

In another thread, I have presented the Five Minimal Facts argument championed by Habermas and Licona. If you haven't followed that thread, you need to know that while some folks here will CLAIM to have refuted them, the fact of the matter is that professional scholars (and not just theists, mind you) are in general agreement that these five facts are known with reasonable certainty. What hasn't been offered (hence my initiation of the Conspiracy Theory thread) is a reasonable alternate theory with any explanatory scope, depth, etc.

Tori, it wasn't my theory, so I'm not blowing my own horn here; I simply made the case as argued by Habermas and Licona, and the silence was deafening. Since you and I haven't interacted in this forum before, let me just say that there are a lot of people here who talk a lot of smack about me, but the fact is that the Five Minimal Facts argument put an ass-whoopin' on the forum collectively, and the trash talk is largely a result of that. You'll see more of that in response to this post, but what you WON'T see is anyone actually refuting the Five Facts.

Now, this is not directed at you, Tori, but it needs to be said:

If anyone takes exception to this, you know where my thread can be found. There are five points presented. Deal with them or shut up. You've done neither so far.

Not really. We put our faith in God based upon what we know about God. There's nothing wrong with gathering the data and making an informed decision to believe and trust God.

Do you hold the same view for people who come to the opposite conclusion? Because I know plenty who lose faith based on what they know about God.

My suspicion is that these folks DO know some things about God, but their knowledge is incomplete or skewed. For example, it is common for people here to go on and on ad infinitum about God allegedly commanding genocide or rape or what have you in the OT. Curiously, these same people NEVER want to discuss the NT, and when they have the OT explained to them, it's as if they put their fingers in theirs ears and start saying "Lalalalalalalala..." because they don't WANT to hear any reasonable explanations that would render their favorite arguments against Christianity impotent. It's preferable for them to maintain their immoral lifestyles or to remain sitting on the thrones of their own lives rather than acknowledge the inconvenient truths that could be understood by an objective seeker.

Maybe it's worth taking a second look now that you're older.

I don't know. My dad read the bible seven times and he hasn't been able to make anymore sense out of it and he's been a Christian since the eighties.

Am I correct in guessing that he is involved in a Protestant or Pentecostal church and not the Catholic Church?

See, Jesus didn't write a book; he promised to build a church, and he left Peter in charge. When Peter died, another man took the office of head of the Church. That man today is Francis, the Bishop of Rome, or Pope. The Catholic Church does not go by the Bible alone; that is a novelty developed by Martin Luther in the 16th century. Instead, the Catholic Church continues, as it has always done, to maintain that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (or teaching authority of the Church) all work together like a three-legged stool which is stable. Luther ripped off two legs, leaving sola scriptura - the Bible Alone, and your Dad is struggling to understand a book on his own when he ought to have Sacred Tradition and the infallible Church to guide his understanding.

[Randy Carson]

If by "interaction" you simply mean trading insults, no.

But I'm always happy to engage in a discussion when someone has something substantive to say.

Except when someone asks a question you can't quote mine an answer for.

Like post #232?

Grow up.

[Randy Carson]

Oh. Sorry...I did respond previously and didn't realize I had left anything important untouched. I will try again.

1. This is an old and not uncommon attack on Christianity. Consequently, a lot of scholarship and research has been put into evaluating the validity of the "copy-cat" accusation. The bottom line is that Christians have nothing to fear from those who claim that the disciples simply borrowed ideas from gods that existed prior to Jesus' day. The fact is that while there are a few parallels here and there, there is no ancient god who provided the prototype for Jesus. In point of fact, the claims of dying and rising gods actually appeared in these other religions AFTER Jesus. Gods who died and rose with the seasons or who continued to live on but in another world, etc. are NOT the same as Jesus who died and physically rose to life again ONCE in this world before ascending to heaven.

2. Now, I am well aware of the fact that you may have read books and/or Internet postings that claim the opposite of this, but as Dr. Yamauchi (a legitimate scholar in this area of specialization) has noted, none of these authors have real academic credentials. There are plenty of good books refuting this nonsense which you can read if you are so inclined.



3. Agreed. That's why I proposed that you start with the largest and work your way down the list till you get to something that makes sense to you.

4. Okay, thanks. What has the FSM actually revealed about itself? I ask because apart from any revelation, the FSM would be a deistic god and not a theistic one because if you don't know that it has interacted with creation, you have to conclude that the silence is intentionally deistic.
It also seems reasonable that if we accept that the FSM exists, then it must have certain characteristics that any religion would ascribe to its god(s), and these would form the basis of some theological doctrines however limited they might be.

5. Believe me, there's not going to be enough substantive material in this forum to keep you occupied. If you're an adult who still laughs at fart jokes, however, you may fit right in.

1. I was not claiming that anyone borrowed anything from anyone. All I was pointing out was that you are wrong when you said no god was ever purported to have resurrected before Jesus. Are you claiming that every single god I mentioned did not supposedly resurrect before Jesus? We can go through each one and see if that is true.

Yes. That is what I am claiming. To the best of my knowledge, there was no God who was a prototype of Jesus who:

1. died and then came back to life in his original body on this earth a few days later
2. died one time
3. died as a sacrifice for others
4. died in a manner that is considered a victory and not mourned by his family and followers

There are other significant differences, but we can discuss them specifically as needed. If you believe that the disciples got all these ideas from pagan gods that were in existence before Jesus, what god(s) do you have in mind?

Taking them one at a time would be best. Who is your first candidate?

2. I don't need to read anything except the list I posted earlier to know that you are an idiot.

Opinions vary, but your view is commonly held by many here, so perhaps there is something to it.

3. Since when did my "sense" make things true?

Your sense doesn't make something true. It either is or isn't apart from your opinion. But when something makes sense, you understand and grasp the truth of it.

4. He has revealed many things to me. Would you like me to list a few?

Thank you for the list you provided earlier. Perhaps we can return to it at some point.

5. I haven't encountered any fart jokes yet, but my eyes are peeled.

Me, either, actually. To be more accurate, I should have said that some members seem to have a scatalogical fixation which directs their choice of words and memes, etc. It's truly juvenile behavior, but one forum member is, or so I have been led to believe, older - so there is the distinct possibility that age and infirmity have affected his judgment.

I hope this satisfies your request for a response to your post. Please advise.

[Randy Carson]

We put our faith in God based upon what we know about God. There's nothing wrong with gathering the data and making an informed decision to believe and trust God.

What do you know about "God" and how do you know it?

Is this a serious question, Steve?

[Brakeman]

I must be on Randy's ignore list too..

[Cyberman]

What do you know about "God" and how do you know it?

Is this a serious question, Steve?

No; it's two serious questions - butchered grammar notwithstanding.

(Remember that little chat about interaction? Yeah, that.)

[T.J.]

Um...no. The EARLIEST writings about Buddha, for example, are dated about 600 years AFTER his death. With Jesus, we have a proto-creed (1 Cor. 15) that can be reasonably dated to AD 35 or so. There is NO parallel to the level of information we have about Jesus in any other ancient religion. As for more recent religions such as Mormonism and Islam, they fail to persuade on other grounds.

In another thread, I have presented the Five Minimal Facts argument championed by Habermas and Licona. If you haven't followed that thread, you need to know that while some folks here will CLAIM to have refuted them, the fact of the matter is that professional scholars (and not just theists, mind you) are in general agreement that these five facts are known with reasonable certainty. What hasn't been offered (hence my initiation of the Conspiracy Theory thread) is a reasonable alternate theory with any explanatory scope, depth, etc.

Tori, it wasn't my theory, so I'm not blowing my own horn here; I simply made the case as argued by Habermas and Licona, and the silence was deafening. Since you and I haven't interacted in this forum before, let me just say that there are a lot of people here who talk a lot of smack about me, but the fact is that the Five Minimal Facts argument put an ass-whoopin' on the forum collectively, and the trash talk is largely a result of that. You'll see more of that in response to this post, but what you WON'T see is anyone actually refuting the Five Facts.

First I heard of Habermas and Licona. Might have to track down the thread later out of curiosity.

My suspicion is that these folks DO know some things about God, but their knowledge is incomplete or skewed. For example, it is common for people here to go on and on ad infinitum about God allegedly commanding genocide or rape or what have you in the OT. Curiously, these same people NEVER want to discuss the NT, and when they have the OT explained to them, it's as if they put their fingers in theirs ears and start saying "Lalalalalalalala..." because they don't WANT to hear any reasonable explanations that would render their favorite arguments against Christianity impotent. It's preferable for them to maintain their immoral lifestyles or to remain sitting on the thrones of their own lives rather than acknowledge the inconvenient truths that could be understood by an objective seeker.

OT and NT have been at odds with each others that at times it almost feels like there's a different god between the two, and when Jesus talks about things like "What you eat doesn't make you unclean," and "Man was never meant to leave his wife," but turn around and says, "I'm not here to change the law, but fulfill it." It doesn't help provide much clarity. And when I see things like the image Brakeman posted, I have to wonder if that has something to do with the various contradictions and change of tone between the two.

Am I correct in guessing that he is involved in a Protestant or Pentecostal church and not the Catholic Church?

See, Jesus didn't write a book; he promised to build a church, and he left Peter in charge. When Peter died, another man took the office of head of the Church. That man today is Francis, the Bishop of Rome, or Pope. The Catholic Church does not go by the Bible alone; that is a novelty developed by Martin Luther in the 16th century. Instead, the Catholic Church continues, as it has always done, to maintain that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (or teaching authority of the Church) all work together like a three-legged stool which is stable. Luther ripped off two legs, leaving sola scriptura - the Bible Alone, and your Dad is struggling to understand a book on his own when he ought to have Sacred Tradition and the infallible Church to guide his understanding.

He simply identifies as Christian, but I think Pentecostal may be a fair description. When I was younger we all went to a Pentecostal church and that was my formal introduction into Christianity. Then we went to a Baptist church for a while, and back to Pentecostal. I never been in a Catholic Church in my life, and admittedly know very little about Catholicism. I'm not sure if he ever has.

Though this brings me to another question, if I'm understanding you right you're basically saying the Catholic Church is the one God intended us to follow, so that means the other churches under the Christianity sect are false? I see some people on the flip-side feel the same about Catholics and even spread misinformation. Why is there so much of a divide between people who claim to be God's children?

As for there being no comparisons to Jesus, I've seen comparisons made between him and Horus, as well as Mithras, but I couldn't tell you how well the comparisons hold up. I've seen the Jesus/Horus comparison before when I was still a Christian and can honestly say it was the first time I seriously questioned my faith. I'm curious what everyone's here views on those comparisons are.

[Randy Carson]

I must be on Randy's ignore list too..

Nope. You just don't say much worth responding to.

HOWEVER, this post did catch my eye because of the glaring error it contains right at the beginning and continuing all the way to an absurd conclusion.

The oldest manuscript we have is actually from the Gospel of John, and it is tentatively dated in the first century...early second at the latest. An announcement is expected in 2016, I think, once all the research on the manuscript is completed.

But putting that aside we also have several from the second century and nearly 10,000 Greek manuscripts altogether.

I explained how all this works in a previous thread here.

Finally, not only has the New King James Version taken all this scholarship into account, but the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and several million Christians of other denominations don't rely on the original KJV anyway.

Do you see why I don't bother to respond to many of your posts, brakeman?

Because it's your belief that memes like this are telling the truth IS insane.

[Randy Carson]

Is this a serious question, Steve?

No; it's two serious questions - butchered grammar notwithstanding.

(Remember that little chat about interaction? Yeah, that.)

Fair enough. It's late, so I will respond tomorrow. Promise.