Still a Christian - ask me questions/tell me about yourselves

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The argument in response is that 1) God did show up, and revealed Himself to many people over many years.

 

As did Zeus, the Dagda, Vishnu, and countless others.  Revelatory claims made by believers don't really qualify as evidence.  My mum had an uncle who was firmly convinced that he saw faeries in his garden - this is not evidence for faeries (it is, however, evidence that great uncle Billy was as crazy as a bedbug).

  He is not obligated to us because we have forsaken Him and often continue to do so.

 

But if God wishes all to come to salvation (it says so in the Bible), then how is he not obligated?

Plus, you can't know an infinite God all at once when you're finite. That process needs to be there. 

Ok, then.  How many visitations by an infinite God are necessary for a finite being to 'know' that God (think carefully before you answer)?

2) The difference is you're talking about people who came after the apostles.

 

Are you contending that no post-apostolic person can have an inkling what God is about (again, think it over.  The question isn't as simple as it seems)? 

The apostles themselves didn't have to die for Jesus' name's sake, in theory, except that they clearly really believed the things they preached because they knew the man. Why would they die for something they didn't believe in?

Sincerity doesn't enter into it.  People can die for fervent belief in a false idea just as much as for a true one.  The apostles' martyrdom says nothing at all about the truth or falsity of what they died for.

Boru

[Cyberman]

Josephus did.

Ah - well, like I said, I follow Jesus, not Josephus. And Josephus, to my knowledge, never followed Jesus, so obviously we're going to disagree on certain things.

Right. Josephus was an orthodox Jew to the end of his life. As you say, he never followed Jesus. Do you really believe that he would have described Jesus as "the Christ" and basically cream his boxers over the character?

My point in saying that Josephus thought Jesus was a "terrible misfortune", or a "sad calamity" depending on the translation, if you want to hold the TF as an authentic reference, is that the context of the passage does not support it. He begins chapter 3 of his Antiquities of the Jews book XVIII with an account of Jewish protests at Pilate's opening of a new aqueduct in Caesarea, using funds sequestered from the Temple. Much bloodshed and loss of life and limb ensued.

At that point we get the TF passage, in which JC is described in such glowing terms that one might think it was written by the guy's press office.

Immediately after, without so much as a pause for breath, Antiquities continues with "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome."

Do you honestly believe that the text following the TF passage is calling back to that passage, and not the text preceding it?

[speedyj1992]

The argument in response is that 1) God did show up, and revealed Himself to many people over many years.

 

As did Zeus, the Dagda, Vishnu, and countless others.  Revelatory claims made by believers don't really qualify as evidence.  My mum had an uncle who was firmly convinced that he saw faeries in his garden - this is not evidence for faeries (it is, however, evidence that great uncle Billy was as crazy as a bedbug).

[I've never heard anyone say someone is or was as "crazy as a bedbug" - that's good, I'll use that, though I'm sorry to hear about your mom's uncle. 

These are good examples, actually, and regarding Vishnu and Hinduism, requires more of a philosophical discussion as a different religion. The Zeus revelation is interesting because Zeus brings us into all of Greek mythology, and we can say now that, based on what we can observe of nature, there is no guy throwing lightning bolts. The sun is not pulled by someone in a chariot. And so on.]

  He is not obligated to us because we have forsaken Him and often continue to do so.

 

But if God wishes all to come to salvation (it says so in the Bible), then how is he not obligated? 

[The key word is "wish", which is what makes the love of God so astonishing, because it's hard to love someone who doesn't love you and reach out to them. That's why God wishes it to happen and gives us time for repentance (2 Peter 3:9 in a nutshell).]

Plus, you can't know an infinite God all at once when you're finite. That process needs to be there. 

Ok, then.  How many visitations by an infinite God are necessary for a finite being to 'know' that God (think carefully before you answer)?

[I never said we can know God entirely in this life, that's what part of an eternal life in Heaven is for. And we're never called to know God entirely, that's not Biblical, but we can get a better idea and better reflect that in our lives.]

2) The difference is you're talking about people who came after the apostles.

 

Are you contending that no post-apostolic person can have an inkling what God is about (again, think it over.  The question isn't as simple as it seems)? 

[I am not contending that at all. Yes, we can know what God is like, arguably more than an inkling because we have His Word, but they had a better idea than we do considering they spent as much time with Jesus as they did. It's a different relationship because God is very personal like that.]

The apostles themselves didn't have to die for Jesus' name's sake, in theory, except that they clearly really believed the things they preached because they knew the man. Why would they die for something they didn't believe in?

Sincerity doesn't enter into it.  People can die for fervent belief in a false idea just as much as for a true one.  The apostles' martyrdom says nothing at all about the truth or falsity of what they died for.

Boru

[Of course not, but these were the guys who directly knew Jesus, who was really about honesty, so dying for the sake of a guy who cared about honesty when you know he was lying, among other teachings of morality (basically, I'm really paraphrasing the stuff Jesus preached) when they knew it was a lie is HIGHLY unlikely. From all 12, nonetheless. Not proof, but compelling as far as a piece of evidence, considering how hard it is to die for something you believe in, let alone something you know to be blatantly false.]

I've put my responses in brackets above, to make things easier for both myself as the responder and you as the reader. Hope that clears things up.

---

Ah - well, like I said, I follow Jesus, not Josephus. And Josephus, to my knowledge, never followed Jesus, so obviously we're going to disagree on certain things.

Right. Josephus was an orthodox Jew to the end of his life. As you say, he never followed Jesus. Do you really believe that he would have described Jesus as "the Christ" and basically cream his boxers over the character?

My point in saying that Josephus thought Jesus was a "terrible misfortune", or a "sad calamity" depending on the translation, if you want to hold the TF as an authentic reference, is that the context of the passage does not support it. He begins chapter 3 of his Antiquities of the Jews book XVIII with an account of Jewish protests at Pilate's opening of a new aqueduct in Caesarea, using funds sequestered from the Temple. Much bloodshed and loss of life and limb ensued.

At that point we get the TF passage, in which JC is described in such glowing terms that one might think it was written by the guy's press office.

Immediately after, without so much as a pause for breath, Antiquities continues with "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome."

Do you honestly believe that the text following the TF passage is calling back to that passage, and not the text preceding it?

In all honesty, I've never read what you're referring to, but I would be interested to analyze it. Is there a website I can look at this on, or a book you would recommend for my reading?

[brewer]

1. If god actually exists why would it take a process? All it would take is an appearance, showing up, proof that it exists in reality. The fact that it does not and requires a "process" only indicates that god is a man made fantasy. Maybe a useful fantasy for some, but still a fantasy. 

2. So did the believers in Heavens Gate. So have thousands of other martyrs (not just christian). Not much of a point. People die for delusional beliefs all of the time.

The argument in response is that 1) God did show up, and revealed Himself to many people over many years. He is not obligated to us because we have forsaken Him and often continue to do so. Plus, you can't know an infinite God all at once when you're finite. That process needs to be there. 

2) The difference is you're talking about people who came after the apostles. The apostles themselves didn't have to die for Jesus' name's sake, in theory, except that they clearly really believed the things they preached because they knew the man. Why would they die for something they didn't believe in?

1. Doubtful, that's only a claim, an anecdote. There is no convincing evidence that your, or any god, actually existed in reality. The rest of your comments are simply the fantasy of how you wish things to be. Have your god show up, then we'll talk on what it takes to "know". 

2. The people of Heavens Gate believe that they lived with their savior/god and died for him and his beliefs. They believed the things he/they preached. You response smacks of personal bias because you believe yours is the only true one. In reality yours is one of many. Yours is not special.  Yours is man made, as they all are.

[Cyberman]

In all honesty, I've never read what you're referring to, but I would be interested to analyze it. Is there a website I can look at this on, or a book you would recommend for my reading?

You could try the text itself: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm. Try reading chapter 3 and skipping over the TF passage, and see whether the narrative flows more naturally without it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[I've never heard anyone say someone is or was as "crazy as a bedbug" - that's good, I'll use that, though I'm sorry to hear about your mom's uncle. 

Don't be sorry - he was a delightful old fellow.

These are good examples, actually, and regarding Vishnu and Hinduism, requires more of a philosophical discussion as a different religion. The Zeus revelation is interesting because Zeus brings us into all of Greek mythology, and we can say now that, based on what we can observe of nature, there is no guy throwing lightning bolts. The sun is not pulled by someone in a chariot. And so on.]

You miss my point.  It doesn't matter what sort of gods people claim they've interacted with, but that the claim of such interaction doesn't constitute proof or even compelling evidence.  You might try doing a search for 'Jesus myth'.

The key word is "wish", which is what makes the love of God so astonishing, because it's hard to love someone who doesn't love you and reach out to them. That's why God wishes it to happen and gives us time for repentance (2 Peter 3:9 in a nutshell).]

I admit to being guilty of a misquote.  The word isn't 'wishes' but 'wills'.  If it is God's will that all 'come to repentance and be saved (same verse), then how can anyone not be saved?  This leads more or less directly to the much thornier issue of God creating people for the sole purpose of damning them, but that's for another time.

I never said we can know God entirely in this life, that's what part of an eternal life in Heaven is for. And we're never called to know God entirely, that's not Biblical, but we can get a better idea and better reflect that in our lives

Seems rather a mug's game, doesn't it?  Like buying a house sight unseen, or agreeing to an arranged marriage and hoping for the best.
***declining to respond to the bit about 'His word***

Of course not, but these were the guys who directly knew Jesus, who was really about honesty, so dying for the sake of a guy who cared about honesty when you know he was lying, among other teachings of morality (basically, I'm really paraphrasing the stuff Jesus preached) when they knew it was a lie is HIGHLY unlikely. From all 12, nonetheless. Not proof, but compelling as far as a piece of evidence, considering how hard it is to die for something you believe in, let alone something you know to be blatantly false.]

Again, you mistake my meaning.  If the Gospel tales hold even a modicum of biography, the apostles believed what Jesus had to say.  What I'm saying is that their belief doesn't make what Jesus was telling them necessarily true.  The could simply have been self-deluded into thinking it was true.  I've no doubt that the  900-odd poor sods in Jonestown didn't think Jim Jones was a liar - they believed sincerely.  But they believed a lie and it cost them their lives.
Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

"Why oh why would they die for a lie"

Who knows, but people clearly do. It doesn't help that the NT is fiction,..but it doesn't matter either, with regards to answering -that- tired old chestnut.

[KevinM1]

"Why oh why would they die for a lie"

Who knows, but people clearly do.  It doesn't help that the NT is fiction,..but it doesn't matter either, with regards to answering -that- tired old chestnut.

It’s not like religions are political entities whose causes are greatly helped by martyrdom....

[The Grand Nudger]

Hell, even fairy tale stories -about- martrydom seem to confer benefits.

[Rev. Rye]

"Why oh why would they die for a lie"

Who knows, but people clearly do.  It doesn't help that the NT is fiction,..but it doesn't matter either, with regards to answering -that- tired old chestnut.

Just ask Bandō Mitsugorō VIII. Oh, wait. You can't do that, because in 1975, he was at a restaurant and demanded the waiters serve him four fugu livers. The Fugu is a poisonous fish whose flesh is, if prepared properly, a delicacy. The liver is one of the most poisonous parts of the fish, and eating four of them... you're all but guaranteed a painful death, including several hours of living in a state of "I have no mouth and I must scream" before the Tetrodotoxin finally finishes you off.

Mitsugoro was evidently blessed with an encyclopedic knowledge of animals and food, which means he would almost certainly have known this, but apparently, he claimed he could somehow be immune to the toxin's effects. Apparently, he died seven hours after that fateful dinner and by all accounts, the pain was excruciating.

Still think nobody would die for something they'd know to be false?