From atheism to Christianity? How so?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Deleted.

[agapelove]

Well hittites for one. And then the ones you omitted in this reply would be what I said about William Lane Craig. You basically asked me if I was rejecting your sources just because I didn't like it (implying I was being intellectually dishonest), and I've shown why WLC isn't worth one bit credulity and you don't reply. Do I take it that you concede?

I didn't come to the thread to defend WLC or anything, really. I just posted my testimony in this thread because Ivy invited me to. Since then I've been involved in a protracted conversation with a dozen different interrogators hostile to my position who are peppering me with questions on complicated matters of theology, history, philosophy and other topics. It's not that I mind, I like talking about these matters but as far as this thread goes to be honest it is wearing me out and it is taking me an inordinate amount of time to answer of all these questions. I would rather just engage someone in a 1 on 1 conversation about a single topic. So, please forgive me for not answering all of your questions..I am trying to cover what seems relevant to our conversation. I'm not trying to score points or "win".

Ok, I looked this up after talking to you about the new testament. So they were written like 80 years after the resurrection supposedly happened. If they were 10 year olds they would have been like 90 when they wrote it. How reliable is that? And we know they weren't kids, they were adults when Jesus was there, what are they all more than a 100 years old? How reliable can you be at that age? And some historians think that the gospels borrowed from each other. So not really independent sources are they? Flavius was born in 37 AD, how could he have seen anything? Whatever he wrote would have to be hearsay.

That's one theory of dating, other theories place the gospels in the 50s and 60s with John being written in the 80s or 90s. So you can't really claim that they are unreliable because of the age when the ages are widely disputed.

In fact if a source isn't archaeologically verified, it would be thrown out.

Except that isn't what your highlighted parts say. It says a relic would be superior to a narrative, but that doesn't mean a narrative doesn't count for anything. It only talks about preference, not about throwing anything out. The other part about any source being corrupted also doesn't prove your point because what would verify it would be the originality of the source.

It really doesn't look that well preserved from this angle. King James' bible was translated at a time when the church of england was experiencing factionalism in the congregation, namely protestant and puritans weren't getting along. So he translated a new bible.

I don't think I claimed anywhere that the KJV was perfect and that isn't what we are discussing. The manuscript evidence is what attests to whether the bible is well attested to, not a specific translation.

The compilation of the bible, the gospels at least, was made because they wanted 4 gospels. No more no less. So they picked whatever 4 best suits their needs and put it in the canonical bible. (it's on wikipedia, which has links to sources) That's an alteration to the bible.

That's one of many theories, so my question to you is, how do you evaluate which theory you believe? These are not simple matters and I think it is only fair to understand the evidence, for AND against before you can say what you think actually happened.

You said it would leave no archaeological evidence, you said a resurrection can only leave eyewitness accounts. Testimonies are not evidence.

I don't know, what is your theory about people who claim Elvis resurrected? Has he resurrected, in your opinion? And if not, what is the difference between the testimonies we have for Elvis and those for Jesus? Elvis has way more independent sources and better documented too.

Eye witness testimonies are evidence; how do you think the american justice system operates? You have asserted that we should have archaeological evidence of the resurrection..so my question is, what does that look like? You haven't answered my question. When you answer my question I'll consider this new question.

List this 40 sources. Even the gospels themselves weren't written by people who've seen Jesus. If that makes it into the bible, I'll be surprised if any of these 40 sources are contemporaries.

Here are some of the best and most recent sources. I'll track down the other sources later on.

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-ne...dor-people

[Esquilax]

How do you explain the martyrdom of the disciples? They all gave up their lines, endured intense persecution, and died horrific deaths for what they all knew was a lie? Doesn't really make sense. I don't see any reason to believe their testimony in the New Testament isn't authentic.

Unless those martyrdoms were yet more embellishments. How do you know that actually happened?

Or, hell, people die for mistaken beliefs all the time. Their conviction doesn't make the beliefs true.

What you're seeing there is a circus and has nothing to do with biblical faith.

That same no true christian fallacy could be leveled at you by numerous christians in disagreement with your position, I'm sure. That's why I don't take it to be an argument until one of you can show your position reflects reality.

How is He lying? God isn't obligated to produce results so that men come to certain conclusions; it is His perrogative to answer prayers in any way He chooses for any reason. Those who know Him will come to the right conclusions, so it is only those who ignore His revelation who will not correctly interpret the results.

You're saying that prayer works, but that in a situation that would lead people to objectively conclude that prayer works, god made it so that it looked as though prayer did not work. That is deliberately shaping things to misrepresent something factual, which is a lie.

That's simply not true and if you read my testimony and my replies you'll see that it's not all just something I feel but something I have directed witnessed in the real world. Whether you feel you can explain it all away or not is a different discussion.

Well, what is it you witnessed in the real world? Because that's an objective phenomenon with a set of steps that can be taken to experience it, which means I could be led to it too.

I wonder what your excuse will be when it doesn't work on me?

Almost everyone believes in God; whether they believe in the same God is immaterial to the fact that most of them have some kind of supernatural experience which points them towards God. I didn't mean the material facts of my beliefs are comfirmed, but my belief that there is a God and the supernatural experiences which point to Him are confirmed.

You don't actually know what corroboration means, do you?

So, if I'm with a group of people and we see a car accident, and I see the wreck of a red car, but someone else sees the wreck of a blue one, and another sees the wreck of a space station, and none of us can agree on any single element, how can we really be sure we saw something at all?

Nothing in this confirms that there's a god; it's confirmation that lots of people will engage with wishful thinking about their place in the universe, their fear of death and impermanence, and their discomfort over not knowing something big like how we got here.

If God exists then His existence is the most basic axiom and without it how could you understand reality? It seems to be self-evident to the majority of the population, and whether we have disagreements about who God is is immaterial to the fact that He is nearly universally perceived.

And yet none of you billions of people have ever bridged that first big if in that statement. I think that speaks volumes about how self evidence god actually is.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Ok, I get that you're answering a lot of people. But you can take your time, don't just cut out a lot of what I say and ignore it as if it didn't happen and then repeat yourself again (the part where I was talking about the validity of the source and the validity of the claim). Because that's not getting anywhere. I asked you to provide evidence to a few things, when you've asked me, I have, so do me the favour and provide me the evidence that shows that the bible is the best attested historical document.

As for Elvis, that's my reply to you. I don't know why people lie about elvis. Nor do i know why people lie about Jesus. I said that in my reply, I said "I don't know, what do you think about Elvis?" So I have answered you, do me the courtesy of at least making an effort. Otherwise just say you no longer want to talk about this and I won't bother spending time putting together sources to reply to your questions.

---

CARM is a biased source. I reject them for the same reason I reject WLC.

Try again.

---

Not interrogating you btw, you were pretty happy to talk about all these in the beginning of the thread. And what did you expect us to feel about christianity and religion? We're atheists. Religions are just elaborate lies, of course we're going to attack your position.

---

Last edit, no promise though. XD. When you say attested to, do you mean to say that the bible exists? Because I know it exists. I mean here we are talking about it, says nothing about the validity of it's claims or if it has been altered. And my claim was that it was altered, and you countered by saying that it was the most well attested to while asking me to provide evidence for saying it has been altered for political reasons. So I did that and you said it's not what you asked for.

What?

[Fruity]

Agapelove, I'm sorry I have not been active in this thread in the last pages. I've mostly been logging in through my phone and it's difficult to type longer responses. I'll make sure to respond tomorrow from my desktop as soon as I have access to it.

[Creed of Heresy]

I can imagine what any rationalist might think when reading this, because it is utterly irrational on the worlds terms. You could call it a psychotic break, or confirmation bias, or any number of things. What I can testify to is the change in my life because I am a completely different person now. I am not problem free, but, I used to be depressed and now I am happy. I used to have a lot of fear and now I am at peace. I used to be addicted to many things and now I am sober. I used to use the internet too much..and I still use the internet too much. You get the picture..

So that's my story and I am sticking to it.

It's natural to be comforted by a lie. Santy Clause be comin' to town and all that. Some people seek the truth, some seek an excuse to change who they are... 'Ey, you're only human, right?

You pretty much nailed it with confirmation bias. I only wonder how you can basically state how what you are saying makes no sense, yet you believe it anyway. You pretty much gave the reasons for why you made a poor choice, and also showed you are capable of improving your life. I am entirely unsure why you are reassured now, believing there is a god who will damn anyone you know to an eternity of damnation for not believing in him if they are non-believers, but, hey, it's about worrying about yourself, not others...right? I am sure that you will try to "save" them, of course, but then, if you so readily admit how you have committed logical fallacies, I wonder how you can actually believe what you claim to believe. Unless you're lying to yourself. And you believe yourself, of course.

[Tonus]

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.

I understand what you are saying. but freedom to choose cannot exist in a scenario where the outcome has already been predetermined. Did god prepare a redeemer in case humanity fell, or did he prepare a redeemer because he knew humanity would fall? Your prior comments imply the latter, hence my reasoning. If the fall of humanity was a foregone conclusion, then it had no choice in the matter, and thus no freedom to act.

Your interpretation of Genesis 6 is one of a few different possibilities. Some say the Sons of God were men and not angels.

Genesis 6 clearly differentiates between humans and "Sons of God." If they are not angels, then they would have to be some other species or a race of super-humans. The most reasonable explanation would be that it refers to angels, IMO.

[RDK]

If prayers got no results, no one would bother. RIGHT ON!

And it's here that someone should point out that, in the real world, all the followers of every other god that has ever existed, that you think isn't real and thus could not answer prayers, nevertheless still prayed. Evidently, prayer can get no results and still be done.

I,ve been reading this whole experience that AgapeLove has had. It is almost identical to those that I have had. I would submit that all of you have faith in something too! You believe what you will about scientific principles that seem to reflect your understanding of a subject. Do you test out every principle by which you believe? Can you? Are you able to repeat every test and every principle so you can prove that your faith is justified? Do you believe everything that these educated people say just because they are intelligent? I am asking a lot of questions since you do not seem to have understood the impotance of another reality with proofs all of their own.

---

And it's here that someone should point out that, in the real world, all the followers of every other god that has ever existed, that you think isn't real and thus could not answer prayers, nevertheless still prayed. Evidently, prayer can get no results and still be done.

I,ve been reading this whole experience that AgapeLove has had. It is almost identical to those that I have had. I would submit that all of you have faith in something too! You believe what you will about scientific principles that seem to reflect your understanding of a subject. Do you test out every principle by which you believe? Can you? Are you able to repeat every test and every principle so you can prove that your faith is justified? Do you believe everything that these educated people say just because they are intelligent? I am asking a lot of questions since you do not seem to have understood the impotance of another reality with proofs all of their own.

If a man believes that a certain experience happened to him, why don't you consider that maybe there is a rational answer to that which you do not understand. I remember once a long time ago that certain scientists were convinced that the world was flat. Those who differed from their beliefs on the subject were considered crazy, even though they were right. Even distorted testimony by someone bears proving out...that is the scientific principle!

---

And it's here that someone should point out that, in the real world, all the followers of every other god that has ever existed, that you think isn't real and thus could not answer prayers, nevertheless still prayed. Evidently, prayer can get no results and still be done.

I,ve been reading this whole experience that AgapeLove has had. It is almost identical to those that I have had. I would submit that all of you have faith in something too! You believe what you will about scientific principles that seem to reflect your understanding of a subject. Do you test out every principle by which you believe? Can you? Are you able to repeat every test and every principle so you can prove that your faith is justified? Do you believe everything that these educated people say just because they are intelligent? I am asking a lot of questions since you do not seem to have understood the impotance of another reality with proofs all of their own.

---

I,ve been reading this whole experience that AgapeLove has had. It is almost identical to those that I have had. I would submit that all of you have faith in something too! You believe what you will about scientific principles that seem to reflect your understanding of a subject. Do you test out every principle by which you believe? Can you? Are you able to repeat every test and every principle so you can prove that your faith is justified? Do you believe everything that these educated people say just because they are intelligent? I am asking a lot of questions since you do not seem to have understood the impotance of another reality with proofs all of their own.

If a man believes that a certain experience happened to him, why don't you consider that maybe there is a rational answer to that which you do not understand. I remember once a long time ago that certain scientists were convinced that the world was flat. Those who differed from their beliefs on the subject were considered crazy, even though they were right. Even distorted testimony by someone bears proving out...that is the scientific principle!

I was a rationalist too before I became Christian. I could not accept the notion of a loving God in a world where everything is in turmoil. Why couldn't He just fix everything and make it right. Couldn't He just talk out loud and clear up the confusion. One God? Where did all of these confusing religions come from anyway.
I don't blame any atheist at all for seeing clearly what is in front of his own eyes. You would be dishonest to yourself to think any other way.
Use the intelligence that you have to consider the positive things that Agape has shared. I believe from the content that he is not lying to any of you.

---

And it's here that someone should point out that, in the real world, all the followers of every other god that has ever existed, that you think isn't real and thus could not answer prayers, nevertheless still prayed. Evidently, prayer can get no results and still be done.

I,ve been reading this whole experience that AgapeLove has had. It is almost identical to those that I have had. I would submit that all of you have faith in something too! You believe what you will about scientific principles that seem to reflect your understanding of a subject. Do you test out every principle by which you believe? Can you? Are you able to repeat every test and every principle so you can prove that your faith is justified? Do you believe everything that these educated people say just because they are intelligent? I am asking a lot of questions since you do not seem to have understood the importance of another reality with proofs all of their own.

---

I,ve been reading this whole experience that AgapeLove has had. It is almost identical to those that I have had. I would submit that all of you have faith in something too! You believe what you will about scientific principles that seem to reflect your understanding of a subject. Do you test out every principle by which you believe? Can you? Are you able to repeat every test and every principle so you can prove that your faith is justified? Do you believe everything that these educated people say just because they are intelligent? I am asking a lot of questions since you do not seem to have understood the impotance of another reality with proofs all of their own.

If a man believes that a certain experience happened to him, why don't you consider that maybe there is a rational answer to that which you do not understand. I remember once a long time ago that certain scientists were convinced that the world was flat. Those who differed from their beliefs on the subject were considered crazy, even though they were right. Even distorted testimony by someone bears proving out...that is the scientific principle!

---

I,ve been reading this whole experience that AgapeLove has had. It is almost identical to those that I have had. I would submit that all of you have faith in something too! You believe what you will about scientific principles that seem to reflect your understanding of a subject. Do you test out every principle by which you believe? Can you? Are you able to repeat every test and every principle so you can prove that your faith is justified? Do you believe everything that these educated people say just because they are intelligent? I am asking a lot of questions since you do not seem to have understood the impotance of another reality with proofs all of their own.

---

If a man believes that a certain experience happened to him, why don't you consider that maybe there is a rational answer to that which you do not understand. I remember once a long time ago that certain scientists were convinced that the world was flat. Those who differed from their beliefs on the subject were considered crazy, even though they were right. Even distorted testimony by someone bears proving out...that is the scientific principle!

I was a rationalist too before I became Christian. I could not accept the notion of a loving God in a world where everything is in turmoil. Why couldn't He just fix everything and make it right. Couldn't He just talk out loud and clear up the confusion. One God? Where did all of these confusing religions come from anyway.
I don't blame any atheist at all for seeing clearly what is in front of his own eyes. You would be dishonest to yourself to think any other way.
Use the intelligence that you have to consider the positive things that Agape has shared. I believe from the content that he is not lying to any of you.

---

I would like to share some more ideas here. It seems that it is very difficult for people to change their minds from any beliefs that they have. This goes for anybody believing anything about something. How about politics? Do any of you vote or get involved in our democratic system? Can you know for assurity that the person you chose to represent you has your best interest in mind? How can you trust anyone by what they say except by the content of the presentation? My acceptance of Christs teaching is based on the content that I receive from it. Never mind the scriptures which do not agree. When men get a hold of something, they experience a lot of difficulty putting it into words. If you had no words available to you, how could you express your belief about anything? Language is imperfect in this world. Those people you hear trying to express themselves in language are doing the best that they can with what they know at the time.
Boil down the essence of what the revelator is trying to say before you find fault.
Christ has done more than any other in this sense...He simplified the complex so that others could understand. He told us that love was the determiner of truth, and those who had that love would understand the principles of God. Jesus did not enforce the old testament law, but freed us from it instead. Those who have love in their hearts can understand the mysteries of God, they are not difficult for anyone to understand once they take a small step forward to Him. Is His involvement with you worth your risk? This is why AgapeLove is spending so much time with all of you. He has experienced a principle and it has changed his life. It has done the same for me.
One thing that science can never do is fill the heart. Science discounts emotion,feeling, experience etc. as some kind of taboo. Yet for many, those are the very things which give us the ability to trust.
Agape is not out to harm you. Love has changed his heart, and this is the MOST meaningful experience that you can have.
If all of this still sounds too stupid for you to accept, I feel sorrow for you. I'm not angry, maybe just disappointed.
None of what I have said should no imply that I am better than any of you. We are all just trying to make simple the confusion which is all around us

[RDK]

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.

I understand what you are saying. but freedom to choose cannot exist in a scenario where the outcome has already been predetermined. Did god prepare a redeemer in case humanity fell, or did he prepare a redeemer because he knew humanity would fall? Your prior comments imply the latter, hence my reasoning. If the fall of humanity was a foregone conclusion, then it had no choice in the matter, and thus no freedom to act.

Your interpretation of Genesis 6 is one of a few different possibilities. Some say the Sons of God were men and not angels.

Genesis 6 clearly differentiates between humans and "Sons of God." If they are not angels, then they would have to be some other species or a race of super-humans. The most reasonable explanation would be that it refers to angels, IMO.

If God knows the future then every action taken by men is also foreknown. What is prophecy anyway but God's affirmation to us that everything which could be known to happen will happen. If God gives us a sense of free will so that we ourselves can not tell the outcome of most things, God shows us that He has. Surely, when Peter denied Christ three times and was warned that he would, God was showing us that everything is foreknown. Even the actions of the crowd and the rooster crowing defined the future ahead of time.
What can all of this mean? Evil in this world is not an accidental occurence. We can see it for ourselves every single day somewhere around us. If evil is determined why is it here?
The rewards of this answer is greater than the sum of all suffering. God designed for us to fall so that He could show us the value of forgiveness. What good is it to have a perfect world where everyone gets along if the real question can be, God , how much can you really love us? Jesus instructs us to love those who hurt us and to foregive everyone for what they have done. If something could drive home the idea that God could love us, then loving us in spite of our sins is proof indeed. God would not send an advocate for problem humanity unless He first loved us. We are participants in a story where everyone plays a part, good and bad alike.

[Polaris]

They wanted more out of life.