Arguments for God Fail Specific Religions

[Giff]

The priest's belief is non-sensical.

If no one is right and no one is wrong, then how can he be right about believing that no one is right or wrong? His belief is self-refuting. How can he be right in believing that life itself that is experienced thru others and religion is also something you experience and use as a tool to experience life if no one is right or wrong?

I agree with you, he doesn't make specilly much sence. I have asked a similar question like you did. He just say simply that you can't be right or wrong when it comes to religion. Which is pretty much what he says when i ask how he can believe what he believe. He also think religion is not what religion often is defined as.

I will try to email him tomorrow. I'm sick today so I don't feel for it today. So far have I discussed the bible, Jesus and of course what belive God is. He don't belvie in the bible literally. He don't beleive in a objectified god, as I said he jsut explain it as experiences in life. He primary chose to be christian since he think that the christian message is something that suits him well.

But I will try to ask him more tomorrow and see if I can get more from him. It have been so far quite hard to understand what he relly mean. He has a little bit fuzzy opinions.

[Edwardo Piet]

If no one is right and no one is wrong, then how can he be right about believing that no one is right or wrong? His belief is self-refuting.

Haha. EXCELLENT line. Very true, I don't think I've thought of that before. And very well put.

[fr0d0]

Sure is essential. A Christ-ian is a follower of Christ. If Jesus didn't live, then he's not god.

Like I said, because your description doesn't apply to all Christians, then it's false.

Why did he have to live? Because one of the most basic Christian doctrines is that we are sinful, and that because we are sinful, we need forgiveness.

No. That's OT in the first place, which makes it correct for Islam and Judaism. It's also true for most religions.

However, since the penalty for sin is death, Jesus had to defeat death, by dying and then rising. If he did not rise, then sin still exists, and we are left with nothing more than a nice philosophy, much less than the esteemed religion "Christianity".

Well that would mean that Judaism isn't a religion, so your conclusion is incorrect. We're in faith territory here. The empirical realm doesn't apply.

If your idea of Christianity works with the idea of Jesus not existing, then I would not call you a Christian. If your idea of Christianity works with the idea of Jesus not rising from the dead, then you fail to understand the basic Christian doctrine of sin.

I find your understanding of Christianity naive.

As nice as the message might be, you're left with nothing but a moral system.

See above

Maybe for you, with your unorthodox beliefs, it's a strawman. But the majority of Christians will vouch for their "divinely-inspired" bible. For them at least, it is 100% true. And if it weren't, then their religion is in tatters.

The Bible for me is 100% true also. Truth isn't a democracy.

If the bible is inconsistent, why take any of it as true?

It isn't

Sure, other books are inconsistent yet we still read them and believe them. However, since the bible is written on the assumption that god exists, that Jesus died and rose, that humans are 6000 years old, etc, it's inconsistency is very, VERY damaging to it's integrity.

The assumptions aren't contradictions. The 6000 year old claim is spurious to say the least.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sure is essential. A Christ-ian is a follower of Christ. If Jesus didn't live, then he's not god.

Like I said, because your description doesn't apply to all Christians, then it's false.

Excuse me but TBH I do not understand how that makes sense fr0d0. Thoughtful is saying that Christians are Christians by definition only if they follow and believe in CHRIST that's why they're Christ-Ian...

You then say that that can't be the case because you know Christians that that doesn't apply to...

But what thoughtful is saying if that doesn't apply to them then they're not Christian! If you don't follow Christ and don't believe in Christ how can you be CHRIST-ian? I don't see how you can get out of that by simply saying "Well some Christians aren't like that" WTF? How are they Christian if they aren't like that though? Surely they're not by DEFINITION if they don't believe in OR follow Christ?

I mean....if ANYONE who claims they're Christian REGARDLESS of whether they actually believe in or follow Christ or not....then I could say I was a Christian and BE one! Even though I don't believe in Christ or follow Christ and I'm an atheist! The definition loses all substance!

How can you get out of the fact that Christians can't be CHRIST-ian unless they believe in/follow Christ....by simply saying "Some Christians aren't like that!", "Doesn't apply to all Christians." Wtf?!?!?

EvF

[fr0d0]

I wasn't referring to that half of the sentence Evie. I gotta get more accurate with my quoting... sawwie! :p

[Edwardo Piet]

LOL you have. Luckily it didn't take me THAT long to do that post....

But it still wasted my time and effort :S

Oh well I should try and find a positive: It's good practice regardless I suppose

EvF

[Madscientist]

athoughtfulman Wrote:
If the bible is inconsistent, why take any of it as true?

It isn't

So there is nothing in the bible that have been proven to be untrue at all?
I must read that book, know your ennemy they say...

[athoughtfulman]

Frodo, even if I accept your definition of Christianity (which I don't), you are still the exception.

I'm going to mix your quotes up a bit and not start with the first thing you said. Here we go.

The Bible for me is 100% true also. Truth isn't a democracy.

Ok, so you believe the bible to be 100% true. Obviously, you will come back at this with an interpretive stance, so I will quote the bible.

I find your understanding of Christianity naive.

After spending 18 years in a conservative baptist church, I am perhaps better informed then you are when it comes to mainstream Christianity. I say mainstream because I'm not referring to whatever you call whatever you believe in (it's definitely not mainstream).

Here's some verses from the bible which is 100% true to you. I will quote the NT to you about why Jesus had to live and why he had to die.

Romans 3:23 - "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished"
Romans 6:23 - 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord.

So righteous comes through faith in Jesus Christ. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and can only be justified by the redemption that came by Jesus. The redemption that came by Jesus? See verse 25 - God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, because ha had left the sins previously unpunished. Now, regardless of what you believe Frodo, this is what almost all evangelical, conservative Christians believe. I'll say it again just in case you missed it.

1. Righteousness comes from god through faith in Jesus.
2. For all have sinned and for short of the glory of god.
3. The wages of sin is death.
4. Therefore we need to be redeemed and justified, which can only come through Jesus Christ.
5. Jesus Christ redemption comes through his sacrifice (death) since the wages of sin is death. (the cross).

Frodo, if you don't believe in Jesus or believe that he existed and died and rose, you are not a christian. At the very least you are not righteous, since the bible you 100% believe in, says that righteousness only comes through faith in Jesus. How can you have faith in someone if you don't believe in them?

Here's some more interesting verses.

1 Tim. 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Gal. 4:5-6, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."
2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
1 Peter 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
Rom. 8:3-4, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh. 4in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."

Like I said, because your description doesn't apply to all Christians, then it's false.

My description applies to all who believe in the above.

No. That's OT in the first place, which makes it correct for Islam and Judaism. It's also true for most religions.

See the New Testament verses above. The doctrine of sin is throughout the bible, in both the NT and the OT. To ignore it is to ignore a very large part of the book you 100% believe in.

Well that would mean that Judaism isn't a religion, so your conclusion is incorrect. We're in faith territory here. The empirical realm doesn't apply.

See the verses above. Jesus had to die.

It isn't

If it isn't, then Jesus did actually die and rise, unless you somehow think the NT is based on metaphor. And if metaphor, why is your interpretation the correct one?

The assumptions aren't contradictions. The 6000 year old claim is spurious to say the least.

You missed what I said. The assumptions aren't damaging to it's integrity, they are simply very large claims. So if it were shown in any way to be false, then it would be heavily damaged and discredited. Forget the 6000 year old claim - you know what I mean.

Like I said, I grew up going to a baptist church for 18 years, was poised to go to bible college, preached a couple of sermons, read a lot of theological books and have a very good understanding of the basics of Christianity, and various theological issues. I repeat, the above is mainstream Christianity. If you interpret the verses above differently, I'm no longer referring to you. However I would like to know how you can believe what you believe when you have the verses above, from the NT to deal with.

[fr0d0]

After spending 18 years in a conservative baptist church, I am perhaps better informed then you are when it comes to mainstream Christianity.

Perhaps is a big loophole conveniently. Don't talk such bollocks thoughtful. So you were a Christian at birth were you?! What utter nonsense - you know very well your experience counts for nothing. I state your understanding is naive and reason that. Do me the justice of responding in like.

Now, regardless of what you believe Frodo, this is what almost all evangelical, conservative Christians believe. I'll say it again just in case you missed it.

Nice impression of a sanctimonious little shit there. That's what I believe. Don't sermonize me.

Frodo, if you don't believe in Jesus or believe that he existed and died and rose, you are not a christian. At the very least you are not righteous, since the bible you 100% believe in, says that righteousness only comes through faith in Jesus. How can you have faith in someone if you don't believe in them?

'Believe' being the operative word here, as we have no proof. Strange how that fits with the signature of God isn't it?!

I have faith that Jesus died & rose & that righteousness only comes through faith in him. How does that fit with your fukkin unique interpretation?

Like I said, because your description doesn't apply to all Christians, then it's false.

My description applies to all who believe in the above.

Whoops! Back to the drawing board it is for you then!

However, since the penalty for sin is death, Jesus had to defeat death, by dying and then rising. If he did not rise, then sin still exists, and we are left with nothing more than a nice philosophy, much less than the esteemed religion "Christianity".

No. That's OT in the first place, which makes it correct for Islam and Judaism. It's also true for most religions.

See the New Testament verses above. The doctrine of sin is throughout the bible, in both the NT and the OT. To ignore it is to ignore a very large part of the book you 100% believe in.

Jesus doing anything doesn't prevent Judaism or Islam from being 'esteemed religion' rather than 'nice philosophy' as you put it.

Well that would mean that Judaism isn't a religion, so your conclusion is incorrect. We're in faith territory here. The empirical realm doesn't apply.

See the verses above. Jesus had to die.

And I have faith that he did.

It isn't

If it isn't, then Jesus did actually die and rise, unless you somehow think the NT is based on metaphor. And if metaphor, why is your interpretation the correct one?

It isn't inconsistent

The assumptions aren't contradictions. The 6000 year old claim is spurious to say the least.

You missed what I said. The assumptions aren't damaging to it's integrity, they are simply very large claims. So if it were shown in any way to be false, then it would be heavily damaged and discredited. Forget the 6000 year old claim - you know what I mean.

So it isn't provably inconsistent. Your point is hypothetical.

[athoughtfulman]

After spending 18 years in a conservative baptist church, I am perhaps better informed then you are when it comes to mainstream Christianity.

Perhaps is a big loophole conveniently. Don't talk such bollocks thoughtful. So you were a Christian at birth were you?! What utter nonsense - you know very well your experience counts for nothing. I state your understanding is naive and reason that. Do me the justice of responding in like.

You missed the point. I grew up in a typical conservative Christian church so have a good understanding of what they believe (since I once believed it too). You can write me off all you want because I'm an atheist, I don't care. I speak to enough Christians to know that my view of them is spot on. If I have misrepresented you personally, my apologies. But I'm not speaking about you personally, I'm speaking about evangelical, conservative Christians.

If you care to argue with me properly, please explain how I misinterpreted the above verses. In your quick reply you seem to have forgotten to reply intelligently.

Now, regardless of what you believe Frodo, this is what almost all evangelical, conservative Christians believe. I'll say it again just in case you missed it.

Nice impression of a sanctimonious little shit there. That's what I believe. Don't sermonize me.

Nothing personal. Like I said, I'm talking about evangelical, conservative Christians. If you don't count yourself one, then you have nothing to worry about.

Frodo, if you don't believe in Jesus or believe that he existed and died and rose, you are not a christian. At the very least you are not righteous, since the bible you 100% believe in, says that righteousness only comes through faith in Jesus. How can you have faith in someone if you don't believe in them?

'Believe' being the operative word here, as we have no proof. Strange how that fits with the signature of God isn't it?!

I have faith that Jesus died & rose & that righteousness only comes through faith in him. How does that fit with your fukkin unique interpretation?

My 'fukkin' unique interpretation? I simply said if you don't believe in Jesus than you are not a Christian. You however believe in Jesus (or have faith that Jesus died and rose), so you fit the description of a Christian. I don't see where my interpretation is wrong?

Like I said, because your description doesn't apply to all Christians, then it's false.

My description applies to all who believe in the above.

Whoops! Back to the drawing board it is for you then!

It would be impossible to find a description to describe all Christians. At some point we have to draw a line, if only for convenience's sake. My description applies to all who believe the above. Go read the verses. Tell me where I've misinterpreted.

However, since the penalty for sin is death, Jesus had to defeat death, by dying and then rising. If he did not rise, then sin still exists, and we are left with nothing more than a nice philosophy, much less than the esteemed religion "Christianity".

No. That's OT in the first place, which makes it correct for Islam and Judaism. It's also true for most religions.

See the New Testament verses above. The doctrine of sin is throughout the bible, in both the NT and the OT. To ignore it is to ignore a very large part of the book you 100% believe in.

Jesus doing anything doesn't prevent Judaism or Islam from being 'esteemed religion' rather than 'nice philosophy' as you put it.

All I'm saying is that if Jesus didn't die, then Christianity falls apart. You believe Jesus lived, died and rose, so I'm sure you can appreciate what I'm saying.

Well that would mean that Judaism isn't a religion, so your conclusion is incorrect. We're in faith territory here. The empirical realm doesn't apply.

See the verses above. Jesus had to die.

And I have faith that he did.

So... we agree. At least that it's about faith. All my original post said was that if Jesus didn't exist or didn't die is that Christianity falls apart. I never claimed to be able to prove that he didn't, empirically or otherwise.

It isn't

If it isn't, then Jesus did actually die and rise, unless you somehow think the NT is based on metaphor. And if metaphor, why is your interpretation the correct one?

It isn't inconsistent

The bible's not consistent? Then why believe it? Why would someone believe in a book as the word of God if it isn't consistent? And if your answer is faith, then we might as well stop discussing this now.

The assumptions aren't contradictions. The 6000 year old claim is spurious to say the least.

You missed what I said. The assumptions aren't damaging to it's integrity, they are simply very large claims. So if it were shown in any way to be false, then it would be heavily damaged and discredited. Forget the 6000 year old claim - you know what I mean.

So it isn't provably inconsistent. Your point is hypothetical.

I'm not making any claim whatsoever in regards to it's consistency. All I am saying is that if there were contradictions, then they would be very damaging to it's integrity.

It seems you missed my original point. All I said what that if the bible wasn't consistent, then Christianity falls apart, and that if Jesus didn't exist, then Christianity falls apart. Note the IF's. I was simply making an observation about the proofs, not claiming that I had proof. What someone makes of these ideas seems to be a personal matter, demonstrated by my lack of faith in them, and your faith in them.