From atheism to Christianity? How so?

[Tonus]

God knew when He created creatures that had a free will to accept or reject Him, that they would fall. His design was to allow us to choose freely and He honored their choice and ordained a Savior to redeem them.

If god created humanity and knew that they would fall, then we must have been designed that way. It seems as if you are saying that free will itself was the cause, in which case we are doomed to one of two futures: we will always fall no matter how many times we are redeemed, or we will have to have our free will taken from us in order to serve god.

I don't see a scenario were god can be absolved of the blame if he knew that his creation would fail, and yet did not adjust or modify the design. It brings to mind the angels of Genesis chapter 6-- spiritual creatures who were aroused by Earth women, and who managed to mate with them and produce offspring. Why design spirit creatures with working reproductive parts? Why make Earth women so desirable that even those spirit beings who spent countless years in the presence of the almighty himself would risk damnation for a bit of fornicating?

The biblical god makes some odd design decisions, for which he blames the creation instead of the blueprint. I think the blueprint is the problem. If the blueprint is signed "ancient humans for our imaginary friend Yahweh" it makes sense. If it's signed "Yahweh, king of the everything" then we have some real problems ahead of us.

[Esquilax]

In this case I am simply asking you to show me the golden rule in the Code of Hammurabi..I don't see it in there, could you point it out to me? Let's get down to the point which is that you say the teachings of Jesus appear elsewhere. We can debate the significance of that once the point is established.

Relatively easy: though admittedly the code of Hammurabi phrases the golden rule in terms of retribution rather than reciprocity, teachings much like the golden rule pop up... pretty much everywhere. Confucius said "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself," long before Christ came along, and he was but one of many to do so. Clearly, the teachings of Jesus weren't so brilliant that mere mortals couldn't think of them on their own

Well, let's look at some specific examples; you say the account of Christ is very similiar to other accounts in many, many ways..so let's compare it to the account you feel is most similiar and examine the validity of the point.

You aren't listening: I'm saying various aspects of the Christ story reappear in many different mythologies. Pointing to just one would be ineffective, when the point I'm trying to make is that it's a narrative made from a patchwork of themes that reoccur in every culture's storytelling traditions.

My point isn't that Jesus is a plagiarized fictional character. It's that his story is too uninspired to be taken as literally true based solely on your claim of how wonderfully unique it is.

That isn't what I was trying to say. My theory is, God would have answered the prayers in the same way, with or without the study. He possibly could have just arranged to have the right people in the study to meet the statistical average. Not that he answered the prayers to create the effect, but he simply arranged for the right people to be in the study for the effect to appear.

Isn't that lying, though? When someone goes to so much trouble as to alter the fates of men so that they appear in specific places just so they can give the appearance that something is not true when in fact it is, that's a lie. God can't lie, right?

If you're testing for the God of the bible, He promises you won't find Him that way, because He only allows people to approach Him in faith. So a study like this can never prove or disprove His existence. That's all I am saying and I am not saying it proves anything about the validity of prayer. I am only saying that if you want to know if the God of the bible exists you have to approach Him in faith and a study like this will not help you find Him.

And we get to the meat of the issue: in order for prayer to work, I have to presuppose the being involved exists, and will answer the prayer. Classic confirmation bias.

Sorry, not trying to strawman you here; I am trying to see how you can validate your reasoning without using your reasoning to do it. From what you've said, you are still using your perception. You perceive that the response of reality to your action confirms your perception of reality. My question is, how do you know it is a valid perception?

Listen... don't come in here spouting anything approaching a presuppositional argument, okay? Those are among the most profoundly dishonest arguments one could ever encounter. What you're doing here is rolling back to solipsism, and it's not going to work because... who cares? What is it that you're arguing here? That there's some alternate reality that we aren't seeing? We're still forced to obey the physical laws of such a reality, and so is everyone else, so who cares?

Not to mention, the same question could be leveled at you, just in case you think you can stump anyone with this: you're using your perception of reality too, and in fact that same perception is the only apparatus you have for reading your bible and feeling in your heart that god exists. How do you know yours is a valid perception?

[agapelove]

And You just linked me a William Lane Craig book. That guy is a dumbass, he's a creationist. He has no respect for evidence or the scientific method.

I don't think William Lane Craig is a creationist. Are you unwilling to consider evidence for the resurrection from any source other than one that doesn't believe it happened?

GIVE ME the evidence from other sources regarding the resurrection. It's quite simple, I've already explained why you cannot use the same thing as claim and evidence. It does discredit the idea a lot. Do you not understand the concept of legends? If you look at history, every prominent ruler has a mystical story tied to them, usually a prophetic dream or a miraculous occurrence at birth. Am I to believe all of that just because someone had the audacity to come up with it? Actually history is constantly being verified by looking at multiple sources and archaeological findings, both of which you have admitted the resurrection does not have.

Multiple attestation increases our confidence in a source, but only having one source is not a reason to discredit it. The Old Testament, for example, was the only source for the existence of the Hittite civilization until archaeology confirmed it more recently. If archaeology had never confirmed it, would you be justified in saying the Hittites didn't exist? That is what your theory that the bible cannot be the only source for a historical event seems to be saying. Why does this rule apply only to the bible and not other historical documents? I'm not sure how you thik archaeology would confirm the resurrection in the first place. If they found the empty tomb, for instance, how would you prove it was empty when Jesus rose from the dead?

If god created humanity and knew that they would fall, then we must have been designed that way. It seems as if you are saying that free will itself was the cause, in which case we are doomed to one of two futures: we will always fall no matter how many times we are redeemed, or we will have to have our free will taken from us in order to serve god.

What I am saying is that we were designed to make a free choice, and God honored the choice and preplanned a redeemer to compensate. In the future, everyone who has freely choosen to serve God will be transformed and no longer be capable of sin. Everyone has already made the free choice to live with God forever and they are now in a transcendent state of being where sin doesn't enter into the picture anymore.

I don't see a scenario were god can be absolved of the blame if he knew that his creation would fail, and yet did not adjust or modify the design. It brings to mind the angels of Genesis chapter 6-- spiritual creatures who were aroused by Earth women, and who managed to mate with them and produce offspring. Why design spirit creatures with working reproductive parts? Why make Earth women so desirable that even those spirit beings who spent countless years in the presence of the almighty himself would risk damnation for a bit of fornicating?

That's one thing we as humans are good at; pointing the finger at someone else. But God designed us to be able to freely choose; that we chose poorly does not mean God is to blame. It simply means we had the freedom to obey or disobey and we chose to disobey.

Your interpretation of Genesis 6 is one of a few different possibilities. Some say the Sons of God were men and not angels. We know that Angels can appear in the guise of men:

Hebrews 13:2 Do not be forgetful of hospitality, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.

Why did would betray God for something small is the great question we can ask of both the angels that fell and the men who still do so.

The biblical god makes some odd design decisions, for which he blames the creation instead of the blueprint. I think the blueprint is the problem. If the blueprint is signed "ancient humans for our imaginary friend Yahweh" it makes sense. If it's signed "Yahweh, king of the everything" then we have some real problems ahead of us.

Man is to blame since he was designed with free will to obey or disobey God. When God created everything it was "very good".

Relatively easy: though admittedly the code of Hammurabi phrases the golden rule in terms of retribution rather than reciprocity, teachings much like the golden rule pop up... pretty much everywhere. Confucius said "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself," long before Christ came along, and he was but one of many to do so. Clearly, the teachings of Jesus weren't so brilliant that mere mortals couldn't think of them on their own

Could you quote the exact text that is supposed to be an iteration of the golden rule? I would like to know exactly what you're talking about so we can examine the evidence. Also, Confucius was preceded by Moses and the Old Testament by 900 years, which is what I am claiming is the original source of the golden rule.

You aren't listening: I'm saying various aspects of the Christ story reappear in many different mythologies. Pointing to just one would be ineffective, when the point I'm trying to make is that it's a narrative made from a patchwork of themes that reoccur in every culture's storytelling traditions.

My point isn't that Jesus is a plagiarized fictional character. It's that his story is too uninspired to be taken as literally true based solely on your claim of how wonderfully unique it is.

Okay, I accept what you're saying. Could you please give some specific examples of what you're talking about, showing how the various aspects of His story is simply patchwork from other cultures? You're making that claim so I would like to see what evidence you are using.

Isn't that lying, though? When someone goes to so much trouble as to alter the fates of men so that they appear in specific places just so they can give the appearance that something is not true when in fact it is, that's a lie. God can't lie, right?

If they interpreted the results through Gods word they would not be confused, which is the point; God has given us instructions which allow us to correctly interpret the results. What scripture tells us is that God arranges things so that those who are following Him will see the truth whereas those who do not will be confounded.

And we get to the meat of the issue: in order for prayer to work, I have to presuppose the being involved exists, and will answer the prayer. Classic confirmation bias.

You aren't ever going to believe God exists unless He reveals Himself to you, and you are praying to ask God to give you that revelation. You are assuming I think that God could never give you confirmation in a way that you would unmistakably recognize as being from Him.

Listen... don't come in here spouting anything approaching a presuppositional argument, okay? Those are among the most profoundly dishonest arguments one could ever encounter. What you're doing here is rolling back to solipsism, and it's not going to work because... who cares? What is it that you're arguing here? That there's some alternate reality that we aren't seeing? We're still forced to obey the physical laws of such a reality, and so is everyone else, so who cares?

It was suggested that what I interpreted to be reality was not sufficient, so my question was, how does anyone know it is sufficient without using circular logic? Are you saying that isn't a valid question?

Not to mention, the same question could be leveled at you, just in case you think you can stump anyone with this: you're using your perception of reality too, and in fact that same perception is the only apparatus you have for reading your bible and feeling in your heart that god exists. How do you know yours is a valid perception?

I think we all have to make presuppositions. I presuppose it is valid because my Creator has given me the faculties to know and recognize Him. My presupposition is that God is a rational being who wants to communicate with His creatures.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

And You just linked me a William Lane Craig book. That guy is a dumbass, he's a creationist. He has no respect for evidence or the scientific method.

I don't think William Lane Craig is a creationist. Are you unwilling to consider evidence for the resurrection from any source other than one that doesn't believe it happened?

You did not reply to a lot of my previous post. I'm going to take it that you've conceded the points?

Anyway, WLC, ok I looked it (I'm sorry, they blend into each other, these apologists) and he is an ID proponent. Well same shit, isn't it?

As to why I won't take his word for it, which I should think is quite obvious, let me put it this way, would you trust an engineer to perform surgery? Then why should I take the word of someone who has no education or experience in history or archaeology and is the very definition of a biased on Jesus's resurrection? He doesn't have the intellectual honesty to recluse himself from biological "debates", he basically spends his entire career lying. His doctorate isn't from an accredited college, which means he's not a real doctor but as you're a fan, you should know he insists on being called one. This guy has 0 integrity and 0 respect for evidence, as I have said before.

Pick a historian or an archaeologist that isn't an apologist by profession. Shouldn't be too hard if it's such an established "fact", should it?

GIVE ME the evidence from other sources regarding the resurrection. It's quite simple, I've already explained why you cannot use the same thing as claim and evidence. It does discredit the idea a lot. Do you not understand the concept of legends? If you look at history, every prominent ruler has a mystical story tied to them, usually a prophetic dream or a miraculous occurrence at birth. Am I to believe all of that just because someone had the audacity to come up with it? Actually history is constantly being verified by looking at multiple sources and archaeological findings, both of which you have admitted the resurrection does not have.

Multiple attestation increases our confidence in a source, but only having one source is not a reason to discredit it.

No but you definitely cannot claim that it happened. The source has to be discredited based on its own properties, not its claims. If it is a legit source, its claims still has to be supported by other sources.

The Old Testament, for example, was the only source for the existence of the Hittite civilization until archaeology confirmed it more recently. If archaeology had never confirmed it, would you be justified in saying the Hittites didn't exist?

Without archaeology you wouldn't be justified in saying that it does. Do you understand now, how this thing works? Just because I claim a I have a car doesn't prove I have a car but it doesn't prove I don't have one either. But without seeing an actual car it would be dishonest of you to tell someone else you know for sure I have a car. Well dishonest or gullible.

That is what your theory that the bible cannot be the only source for a historical event seems to be saying.

Well I just explained this. Hopefully this time you get it. My claim of having a car is not proof of having a car. That's what I'm saying.

Before you get mixed up, just because one part of the bible has some basis doesn't mean the entire thing is real. I want to point out once again that even though you found a Hittite civilization, it is not proof that what happened to the hittites in the bible happened in real life. Do you understand the level of evidence I require now?

Why does this rule apply only to the bible and not other historical documents?

It applies to all.

I'm not sure how you thik archaeology would confirm the resurrection in the first place. If they found the empty tomb, for instance, how would you prove it was empty when Jesus rose from the dead?

I think having someone resurrected you would get at least a lot of different sources describing the same thing happening. (The bible is one source, which has been heavily altered to suit political purposes since it was first compiled, another reason why it should be discredited as a source altogether). By the way, isn't it dishonest to claim that something happen and then when asked to prove it, say, well it's the nature of this event to not leave proofs behind. Then how can you claim it happened in the first place?!

In summary, you only have the bible for resurrection. Yet this qualifies as historical while the Qur'an which states Jesus is not god doesn't qualify as a historical and factual document.

The reason you're not winning this argument is because you're defending something that cannot be defended, no amount of twisting will change reality.

[Esquilax]

Could you quote the exact text that is supposed to be an iteration of the golden rule? I would like to know exactly what you're talking about so we can examine the evidence.

I provided a link in my last post: did you not see it? In it, there was a list of several quotations of the golden rule that predate Jesus.

Also, Confucius was preceded by Moses and the Old Testament by 900 years, which is what I am claiming is the original source of the golden rule.

Right, but Christianity didn't get to China until the eighth century, after Confucius had died, which means he couldn't possibly have been inspired by the old testament when he said that, putting the lie to your claim that the teachings of christianity are so unique and wonderful as to be divinely inspired, because no mortal could have thought of them. Mortals did, and they did it without help from your god.

Okay, I accept what you're saying. Could you please give some specific examples of what you're talking about, showing how the various aspects of His story is simply patchwork from other cultures? You're making that claim so I would like to see what evidence you are using.

I did that a few posts ago too: the concept of the dying and rising god, or even just the dying and rising protagonist, is a common narrative trope that was employed by numerous old gods. Baal, Baldur, Istar, Dionysus... numerous gods go through this, though Jesus is notable as being one of the few reported to actually be extant on earth after death. Wine as a symbolic instrument is notable in Dionysus' story too, and the idea of gods coming to earth in mortal aspects can be seen at the very least in Zeus' mythology.

If they interpreted the results through Gods word they would not be confused, which is the point; God has given us instructions which allow us to correctly interpret the results. What scripture tells us is that God arranges things so that those who are following Him will see the truth whereas those who do not will be confounded.

So the christians and their unselfish prayers weren't following god correctly because they... expected to see results? Of the prayers that you have said in the past would yield a result.

Tell me, other than the fact that these prayers were conducted in such a way that their potential failure could be publicized with more weight than you christians could brush off with platitudes, what was it that these praying folks did to deserve not getting an answer?

You aren't ever going to believe God exists unless He reveals Himself to you, and you are praying to ask God to give you that revelation. You are assuming I think that God could never give you confirmation in a way that you would unmistakably recognize as being from Him.

My problem is that you then go on to say that if my prayer is unanswered, that too is god's will: you've set up a demonstration in which you believe god can be shown to exist, and then configured it so that no matter the result, or even if there's no result, the existence of your god is the only answer you'll accept.

You've proposed an unfalsifiable test, is what I'm saying.

It was suggested that what I interpreted to be reality was not sufficient, so my question was, how does anyone know it is sufficient without using circular logic? Are you saying that isn't a valid question?

It's not a valid question if you're willing to string it out to perception, because that's just a way to make your beliefs unassailable. Maybe you just fell victim to having a strikingly similar argument to the one Sye Ten Bruggencate would use, but the point is that at a certain level, what we've got to deal with is confirmation and corroboration: the commonalities between our shared perceptions, the things we both experience? Those can be said to be verified. The physical objects that look, smell, sound and feel like they should if they physically existed? Same deal. When you ask us if our perception could be faulty, we know it is, in part. That's why we don't always trust the things we experience exclusively; police continue investigating crimes beyond the testimony of their first witness, for example. But when you try to extend that out, to imply that multiple people corroborating the same events could be mistaken, simply because they're using their perception and that might be false, you enter into useless territory: we only have the sensory apparatuses of ourselves and others. There's no other method by which we can experience the world.

I think we all have to make presuppositions. I presuppose it is valid because my Creator has given me the faculties to know and recognize Him. My presupposition is that God is a rational being who wants to communicate with His creatures.

Yeah, the moment you start presupposing anything, beyond very basic axioms, you've discarded rational discourse.

[Angrboda]

Could you quote the exact text that is supposed to be an iteration of the golden rule? I would like to know exactly what you're talking about so we can examine the evidence. Also, Confucius was preceded by Moses and the Old Testament by 900 years, which is what I am claiming is the original source of the golden rule.

Do you have an explicit statement of the golden rule by Moses?

If you're referring to Leviticus 19:18, (“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against . . . thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”), then I must point out that Leviticus reached its final form between the 3rd and 6th centuries BCE. While some of its composition predates the 6th century BCE, because it was edited up until that point, no single passage can be dated to before the 6th century BCE. Confucius was writing at this same period in time, during the 6th century BCE, so there is no way to claim that any passage in Leviticus in particular predates Confucius' quoting of the golden rule. And given that some of Leviticus may date to after Confucius, it's entirely possible that the editors of Leviticus got the idea from Eastern philosophy rather than the other way around.

I also notice you just completely ignored that rules of reciprocity similar to the golden rule occur in both the code of Ur-Nammu and the Eloquent Peasant, which I pointed out earlier. In particular, the Eloquent Peasant which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC) includes the admonition: "Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you." Predating even the oldest of the Mosaic texts under the most liberal dating. Convenient of you to ignore it.

The first millennium BCE in China, India, and Persia, was a time of great advances in philosophy and religion, in which many of the ideas that appear in Jewish religious lore also found expression in other cultures. The first millennium BCE is in the middle of what is loosely referred to as "the Axial age" as there appears to have been a simultaneous blossoming of culture and philosophy across diverse cultures around the globe about this time. There is plentiful evidence that similar philosophies sprung up multiple places across the globe almost simultaneously, and the example of it springing up in first millenium BCE Judaism is therefore unremarkable and underscores Esquilax's point that your Judeo-Christian ethical philosophies are not unique and original to the Jews and Christians.

I've got numerous source books of both Chinese and Indian philosophy from this period, but I'm not going to waste my time looking up examples if all you're going to do is cherry-pick which evidence you respond to, and even then claim more than your evidence actually shows. The apologetic store house that you're dispensing these pearls from contains nothing but sand and rotten grain.

[Minimalist]

I haven't read his books but I've listened to a few debates he was in and I don't think the evidence is on his side. I could give examples if you like, or link to some of the debates.

I think you should read the book...but I understand your fear of it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@pinnapple... the bible has four Gospel accounts which to my mind counts as 4 documents supporting the historisity of the Resurrection.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

@pinnapple... the bible has four Gospel accounts which to my mind counts as 4 documents supporting the historisity of the Resurrection.

Just because one book has 4 similar chapters doesn't mean they all originated from different sources. Just because one book has more than one authors doesn't mean it's multiple sources, it's just people coming together to collaborate on something.

If it's acceptable as 4 sources by reputable and actual historians and archaeologists then I would, too.

ETA: btw, I still need actual historians and archaeologists to claim and show that jesus resurrected. Not just existed.

[Neo-Scholastic]

St. Luke was a historian.