Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

How Is Christianity Reasonable


Celsus

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Grandpa Harley

    43

  • GraphicsGuy

    12

  • Brother Jeff

    11

  • Evolution_beyond

    11

Adam and Eve were barely toddlers when they were thrown out of the garden of Eden--having only just been born according to xtian-savings-time. How reasonable was that for a god to do? There was a talking snake! God made even the talking snakes. Why wouldn't a little girl trust a talking snake that said eating the fruit was ok and god would not get angry? If my fucking cat told me to take out the garbage I would! I'd be so freaked out over a talking snake I'd build it a church too! However, the Christian god tossed a tantrum and killed everybody for making their FIRST MISTAKE, then we listen about how loving and understanding this god is to the rest of us. The story of eden is false, a fable that resulted in the creation of a murderous religion around that fable and the man-god that came to earth as the result of that same fable. How much bullshit can humanity have crammed down its throat? If genesis cannot be proven, neither can Jesus because without genesis there would not be a story of Jesus. Jesus came as the direct result of the fall from grace in the garden of eden. Kill the snake and the story runs like road-apples down a hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DevaLight wrote: How is this unclear? Why not address why you believe the above points are factual instead of giving us another set of your own questions? Not up to the task?

 

Oh, it's very clear, however, you and I both know any answer I give will lead to a ping-pong back and forth till we end up to the questions I've asked. Don't believe me, watch! Here we go! Ready?

 

1. A talking snake tempted the mother of all humanity and she tempted the father of all humanity and thus they sinned.

 

Yes, Satan appeared to Eve in the form of a serpent. (Talking snake). Eve persuaded Adam and thus yes, the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty. Is that fair? Doesn’t seem so. But it is all of God’s plan called dispensation which is according to His purposes towards man.

 

2. All humans are thus tainted with the original sin, instigated by a talking snake.

 

Yes, Factual because I believe the Word of God.

 

I don't want to hi-jack Bruce's thread with my questions, therefore I'm going to start another thread titled "Philosophical questions", because I'll garranty you that if we continue with these question on this thread, we will no dout end up answering to these four questions.

 

Com'on who's up for some deep thinking?

 

Ping…! ball paddled.

If you believe all that shit, then you also believe in the mythological animals that the church has written out of the original manuscripts. Mythological animals such as fawns, satyrs, unicorns, and cockatrices. If the bible is true then why did xtians change the words to suit animals that were not mythological?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40zz has managed to be handed his ass. He's still lurking but realises he has nothing to say to his betters...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an open invitation to any Christian who supports the orthodox (Nicean Creed) view of Christianity. Please explain why you think it is reasonable to believe the following basis of orthodox Christianity is factual?
  1. A talking snake tempted the mother of all humanity and she tempted the father of all humanity and thus they sinned.
  2. All humans are thus tainted with the original sin, instigated by a talking snake.
  3. God fathered a son by a human woman, who is also the same god as his father.
  4. God the son died to pay the price to himself (god the father who is also somehow the same person as god the son), for the sin instigated by the talking snake. (see 1 & 2)
  5. God the son came back to life and flew off into the sky.
  6. If I just believe 3, 4 & 5, I will go to heaven and not have to pay the price for the sin caused by the talking snake (1 & 2).

I look forward to a logical explanation on why a reasonable person should give this any consideration.

 

Bruce

 

Hi Bruce. I want to take the challenge and as I have not read this whole thread I hope I am not repeating things.

 

To me, allegorical, hyperbole, symbology and so forth are the keys to 'seeing' meaning.

 

To me, Adam and Eve represent spirit and soul. Adam=spirit Eve= soul. Not mystical, I see my being as, for lack of better terms, made up of different manifestations.

 

Serpent is the writers way of describing our mind. We are not born perfect beings. We are subject to other forces thus the serpent and it's tainting.

 

God is our natural divine 'part'. The divine in us comes in the midst of our 'human woman' or carnal nature.

 

God the Son as you say died or better put, the divine in us embraces the carnal and both die or embark on a new creation or birth or whatever. This new creation is the divine man as opposed to the carnal man. Thus Bruce the carnal becomes Bruce the divine.

 

The divine life soars into the sky or our minds are freed to soar to new heights.

 

Make any sense?

 

Just my thoughts.

 

js

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is our natural divine 'part'. The divine in us comes in the midst of our 'human woman' or carnal nature.

 

:Hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is our natural divine 'part'. The divine in us comes in the midst of our 'human woman' or carnal nature.

 

:Hmm:

 

Hey Doc,

 

Weird huh?

 

js

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is our natural divine 'part'. The divine in us comes in the midst of our 'human woman' or carnal nature.

 

:Hmm:

 

I was wondering where all these carnal women were when I was young and single...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is our natural divine 'part'. The divine in us comes in the midst of our 'human woman' or carnal nature.

 

:Hmm:

 

Hey Doc,

 

Weird huh?

 

js

 

Not weird, gibberish... unless you're taking the Chinese Taoist Yin/Yang type view... and then it's

YÄ«n (é™° or 阴 "shady place, north slope, south bank (river); cloudy, overcast"; Japanese: in or on; Korean: ìŒ, Vietnamese: âm) is the dark element: it is passive, dark, feminine, negative, downward-seeking, consuming and corresponds to the night.

 

Yáng (陽 or 阳 "sunny place, south slope, north bank (river), sunshine"; Japanese: yÅ; Korean: ì–‘, Vietnamese: dÆ°Æ¡ng) is the bright element: it is active, light, masculine, positive, upward-seeking, producing and corresponds to the daytime.

 

Yin is often symbolized by water and earth, while yang is symbolized by fire and air.

 

Yin (dark) and yang (light) are descriptions of complementary opposites as well as absolutes. Any yin/yang duality can be viewed from another perspective. All forces in nature can be seen as existing in yin or yang states, and two produce constant movement/force of the universe.

 

As the universe is relative and interdependent, the determination of which thing is yin or yang depends on what is its complementary opposite - that is, the frame of reference. This yin-and-yang relativity concept forms the core in understanding of many Chinese philosophic classics as embodied in the Tao Te Ching

 

From wiki for convenience... Yin being 'consuming' is de facto 'carnal'...

 

Now, you can either try and find a less unfortunate turn of phrase, or I'd stick to subjects like Avocado toast or similar...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is our natural divine 'part'. The divine in us comes in the midst of our 'human woman' or carnal nature.

 

:Hmm:

 

I was wondering where all these carnal women were when I was young and single...

 

Russia baby! Didn't you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant locally... and when I was young and single, the only way I was going to Russia was if I was in a fighter bomber... and then only if they'd called me up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmmmm Avocado Toast.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an open invitation to any Christian who supports the orthodox (Nicean Creed) view of Christianity. Please explain why you think it is reasonable to believe the following basis of orthodox Christianity is factual?
  1. A talking snake tempted the mother of all humanity and she tempted the father of all humanity and thus they sinned.
  2. All humans are thus tainted with the original sin, instigated by a talking snake.
  3. God fathered a son by a human woman, who is also the same god as his father.
  4. God the son died to pay the price to himself (god the father who is also somehow the same person as god the son), for the sin instigated by the talking snake. (see 1 & 2)
  5. God the son came back to life and flew off into the sky.
  6. If I just believe 3, 4 & 5, I will go to heaven and not have to pay the price for the sin caused by the talking snake (1 & 2).

I look forward to a logical explanation on why a reasonable person should give this any consideration.

 

Bruce

 

First, as a Christian, I don't believe in the so-called "orthodox" view of Christianity. I believe that we must speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.

 

As for your questions...

 

1: Who said the snake talked in what we would recognize as a language? Any zoologist will tell you that animal species and races each have their own "language" and "dialect". Perhaps pre-deluge humans could understand the sounds the animals made, and learn what they meant to convey with their messages. After all, isn't dog training - or animal training in general, - about understanding animals? As for how the snake could tempt Eve, let's understand that the Devil was involved. Any spirit can influence a living body more than they can a dead one; only a spirit made especially for a non-living body, and vice-versa, can influence it... and only then by entering it... and only an absolute fool would believe that women have no power whatsoever to manipulate men. Let's also remember that Adam and Eve were playing an ancient version of that game politicians play all the time: "pass the buck". In short, every being (except the snake, since it didn't know any better,) involved in the controversy had a choice; it's just that they chose not to do the right thing.

2: No human is tainted by "original sin". That idea came from the misinterpretation of God's Word by perhaps well-meaning, but still misinformed, individuals. The fact remains that the only thing anybody inherited from Adam and Eve, in regards to sin, is the ability to learn from both sides of the story. In short, a gullible mind that can be as easily - or even more easily, - swayed by imagination as by logic (which is what God gave us).

3: God the Son was derived from God the Father. This makes him capable of being equal with God. The Holy Spirit processed Him through the womb of Mary. Some lizards can give birth aesexually. Why not one woman, in the history of all existence?

4: I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. Although part of God the Father, God the Son has His own distinct personality. Thus, He is both one with the Father (literally), and separate from the father (in personality). The only way for mankind's sin to be paid for was by a life being spent for it: i.e. death. Even the South American and Central American pagans understood this fact (though they took it to the wrong extreme). Since this was a kind of symbiotic act - taking the penalty of the sin on Himself, so we wouldn't have to, - the sacrificial individual had to know how to sin, but still be sinless. No human could fulfill this, because we all go our own way; and, when our way corrupts the ways of God (often through inherited values), that constitutes sin. Hence, since the only one that was not affected by sin in any manner was God (in His three parts), only part of God could pay the price. It's not a matter of paying Himself off; it's a matter of undoing on a spiritual level the damage that was done. When sin first came into the world, it's suffering effects inspired it's victims to sin, as a survival mechanism. To stop this, God the Son proposed to die, should the situation become dire enough. Never forget that it's always our decision, but God is eternally hopeful that we will do the right thing for all involved.

5: You answered your own question. God the Son is a part of God; therefore, He has God's power. He came back to life, and transformed His old body into a part of Himself that could convey His re-attained glory. Then, being God, He had the power and clout to be able to "raise into the sky", by God the Father's command, into Heaven. Being saved is not about becoming something you weren't meant to be; it's about re-attaining that state of purity that we all have somehow lost, at one time or another.

6: It's not about just belief; it's a committment, and a change of life. It's like obtaining something from a dead man's will: the only way you can get it is to obey the conditions of the will. In this case, be willing to change your ways to the better way that Christ taught, and be willing to commit yourself to that way through repentance and the symbol of baptism. In essence, baptism is like marriage. Before you're married, you can date anyone you choose, even if you want to be faithful to the one you're with and do things for them to show your love. In order to mark a commitment to that person and that person alone, however, the "leap of faith" of marriage is required... still, the ritual must mean the right thing to you. In baptism's case, a willingness to leave an individualistic - and possibly wrong, - way for a definitely right way, through submission to the founder of that way; who gave His life for you to be able to get a second chance. Don't we all want a second chance?

 

In short, it's the most logical explanation, and scientific discoveries point to it. Physically, mentally, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually, if you follow Christ, I ask you... please try to answer without prejudice toward Christianity: What have you to gain, and what have you to lose? All that matters in life, you have to gain by following this way Christ revealed in God's Word; likewise, if you reject it, you have everything to lose that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bunch of convoluted mythology and strained apologetics followed by Pascal's deeply flawed Wager. You didn't explain how Christianity is reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, Jeff, you beat me to Pascal's wager bingo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, Jeff, you beat me to Pascal's wager bingo!

 

MAN SHIT! You guys are way too fast for me today, need to set aside the zanex bottle for a while, hell I was fixing to pull the PW card...

 

/me smacks you fast posters around with a week old trout...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please try to answer without prejudice toward Christianity

 

You answer without bias for Xianity first, then we'll talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the way you do that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please try to answer without prejudice toward Christianity

 

You answer without bias for Xianity first, then we'll talk.

 

My answers are not based on bias; I believe in Christianity because it was, and still is the logical conclusion, and because I have seen the evidence of it in my own life and the lives of others.

 

A bunch of convoluted mythology and strained apologetics followed by Pascal's deeply flawed Wager. You didn't explain how Christianity is reasonable.

 

First of all, I explained the answer logically and scientifically. You refuse to believe that, because it conflicts with your beliefs. Hence, the request for the replies to be made, if possible, without bias against Christianity. If you notice, the answers I've given you - while not main-stream, - are scripturally, logically, and scientifically accurate. If you don't believe me, look at the quotes and works of Robert Jastrow: founder and director of N.A.S.A.'s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, professor of Earth Science at Dartmouth University, and professor of Astronomy at Columbia University. Then see Ben Stein's movie, Expelled. Note that Ben Stein is Jewish; and the majority of Jews don't believe in Christianity, either.

 

Secondly, I still don't know what you mean by Pascal's Wager, or why you believe it to be flawed. Are you sure you're not talking about Louis Pasteur, and his experiments that successfully disproved spontaneous natural generation? If not,

I would appreciate a brief run-down on this Wager.

 

Finally, though I call myself an apologeticist, I go by nobody else's work but the Word of God, and the evidence derived from experiments conducted with regards to it's truths. I refuse to go by any human's opinions; that way, I can ensure that no individual's imaginations or prejudices can cause me to be misinformed.

 

Perhaps the better question is, why don't any of you believe in God's Word anymore? From the posts I've read, the following are the main reasons:

 

1) Prideful exclusion: it makes you feel bad to realize that you are not infallible, and might need to change to accomplish your full potential. Rather than deal with this fact, you deny it, and any and all works connected to it.

2) Misinformation: you've listened to other people take the evidence, and other peoples' works out of context, and you never got the other side of the story, in it's purest format. In that case, it is all-too-likely that your conclusions are wrong; however, it wasn't your conclusions, so it isn't entirely your fault. A deeper, more thorough study of both sides of the argument, and all of the evidence at hand, will show you the truth instead.

3) Personal suffering: at some point, you suffered so much, that Satan's influences were able to convince you in your hour of greatest distress of a more comforting and more convenient thought: maybe Christianity is wrong, which means you need not suffer. In that case, you're still blind to the truth, and are instead following only what one's limited observations can lead one to believe when manipulated (and too easily, in times of distress).

 

In any case, many of you have fallen victim to, and thus propogate, arguments based solely on the misinterpretation of evidence into what you want it to say, rather than what it actually indicates. This is part of your arguments, based on appeals to egos and emotions. You already understand that "you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar", and that overemotionality can inhibit your logical thought processes, by focusing on your abstract ideals.

 

Think about that...

 

-D-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I explained the answer logically and scientifically. You refuse to believe that, because it conflicts with your beliefs.

No you didn't. I refuse to believe it because you didn't do it.

 

Then see Ben Stein's movie, Expelled. Note that Ben Stein is Jewish; and the majority of Jews don't believe in Christianity, either.

ID is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination. That's why it doesn't belong in a science classroom. It makes no predictions other than "goddidit" and it has no explanatory power. Therefore, it is not science. Note that Ben Stein is an actor, not a scientist. NO Jews believe in Christianity.

 

I still don't know what you mean by Pascal's Wager

See this link: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html

 

If you really want to know why I don't believe that the bible is the word of a god anymore, you can read my anti-testimony here:

 

http://christianityisbullshit.com/brother-...y-in-two-parts/

 

Or, you can stick to your arrogant and misinformed assumptions. Your choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
please try to answer without prejudice toward Christianity

 

You answer without bias for Xianity first, then we'll talk.

 

My answers are not based on bias; I believe in Christianity because it was, and still is the logical conclusion, and because I have seen the evidence of it in my own life and the lives of others.

 

A bunch of convoluted mythology and strained apologetics followed by Pascal's deeply flawed Wager. You didn't explain how Christianity is reasonable.

 

First of all, I explained the answer logically and scientifically. You refuse to believe that, because it conflicts with your beliefs. Hence, the request for the replies to be made, if possible, without bias against Christianity. If you notice, the answers I've given you - while not main-stream, - are scripturally, logically, and scientifically accurate. If you don't believe me, look at the quotes and works of Robert Jastrow: founder and director of N.A.S.A.'s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, professor of Earth Science at Dartmouth University, and professor of Astronomy at Columbia University. Then see Ben Stein's movie, Expelled. Note that Ben Stein is Jewish; and the majority of Jews don't believe in Christianity, either.

 

Secondly, I still don't know what you mean by Pascal's Wager, or why you believe it to be flawed. Are you sure you're not talking about Louis Pasteur, and his experiments that successfully disproved spontaneous natural generation? If not,

I would appreciate a brief run-down on this Wager.

 

Finally, though I call myself an apologeticist, I go by nobody else's work but the Word of God, and the evidence derived from experiments conducted with regards to it's truths. I refuse to go by any human's opinions; that way, I can ensure that no individual's imaginations or prejudices can cause me to be misinformed.

 

Perhaps the better question is, why don't any of you believe in God's Word anymore? From the posts I've read, the following are the main reasons:

 

1) Prideful exclusion: it makes you feel bad to realize that you are not infallible, and might need to change to accomplish your full potential. Rather than deal with this fact, you deny it, and any and all works connected to it.

2) Misinformation: you've listened to other people take the evidence, and other peoples' works out of context, and you never got the other side of the story, in it's purest format. In that case, it is all-too-likely that your conclusions are wrong; however, it wasn't your conclusions, so it isn't entirely your fault. A deeper, more thorough study of both sides of the argument, and all of the evidence at hand, will show you the truth instead.

3) Personal suffering: at some point, you suffered so much, that Satan's influences were able to convince you in your hour of greatest distress of a more comforting and more convenient thought: maybe Christianity is wrong, which means you need not suffer. In that case, you're still blind to the truth, and are instead following only what one's limited observations can lead one to believe when manipulated (and too easily, in times of distress).

 

In any case, many of you have fallen victim to, and thus propogate, arguments based solely on the misinterpretation of evidence into what you want it to say, rather than what it actually indicates. This is part of your arguments, based on appeals to egos and emotions. You already understand that "you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar", and that overemotionality can inhibit your logical thought processes, by focusing on your abstract ideals.

 

Think about that...

 

-D-

 

 

 

Rev, Rev, Rev...

 

This site exists for us ex-Christians. Most of us here have thought your thoughts and believed your beliefs. It only takes some thinking and studying to see the Bible for what it is - ancient mythology, and derivative at that. BTW, which Bible do you refer to? The one with all the writings, or the one edited by Catholics, or the one edited by Protestants?

 

I for one, and I expect many others, didn't leave their faith because they wanted to commit certain sins, or a loved one died unjustly and they blamed God, or because televangelists are greedy fakes. I know I never blamed Christianity for the Inquisition or witch burnings. The Bible, all by itself, ends belief when studied and compared to observable facts, experience and reality. You, like many others, have been told that the Bible is factual and even the actual Word of the One and Only God. Holding that belief you therefore must twist reality to support your foregone conclusion, for the Word of God must be true. To say that we are the ones misinterpreting evidence would be insulting were it not so absurd.

 

If your belief is comforting to you, then enjoy it. Just don't expect rational people with open minds to join you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what have you lost if Christianity isn't the truth, but Islam is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answers are not based on bias

 

 

Actually, you are... you are making a-priori assumptions about the nature of the snake in the garden with no evidence to back it. So... first of all. Prove spirits like 'the Devil' exists. you claim science... well, pull out the instruments and scientifically (that is reproducibly) prove the devil exists. We also need a comprehensive list of your test criteria and other base assumptions.

 

Then we can move on to why 'Chrisitianity' is correct while all other religions are not. Again, list of assumptions, criteria of 'proof' and references...

 

 

Inductive axioms really don't cut it, so save us that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answers are not based on bias

 

Bullshit! Of course your answers are biased! Because it's what you believe and what you believe entirely affects your answers. Your observations aren't objective in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4) Enough about the snake, already! Jesus died to pay the price for US, and nothing else. Do you need chapter and verse? I mean, if you set something in motion, be it life, death, sin, forgivness, redemption, etc... wouldn't you want to see it through to it's logical conclusion? Or would it just be a video game to you, where you can start over again tomorrow and none the wiser and no harm no foul? Are you sure that this is how God would think? Another answer to this question would be, have you ever paid off your own debt?

 

Nope, can't get away from the snake. The story of the snake is the reason for the story of Jesus. Kill the snake and you have no reason for Jesus' ministry. The story of the talking snake is fiction, if god is all-knowing, he knew that and would not sacrifice himself over a work of fiction. Jesus is then fiction as is any claim that he was alive or resurrected. Christianity is for losers. You can't prove man is guilty of anything, however, history shows christianity is guilty of crimes against humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.