Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Guest lionkiller]

Its been a while since I've posted on this site, so I want to state my reasons for remaining a Christian in response to Anterlman's broad overarching question of this thread.

 

Why do I remain a Christian? The question itself suggests willing ignorance on my part in the form of blind fideism. Christianity is not blind faith. It does take faith, but Christianity is also something that can be intellectually pursued, if done correctly. So the question then becomes, Why AM I a Christian?

 

For me, the reason I am a Christian is because of the historical fact of the empty tomb of Jesus Christ. All four Gospel narratives claim that Jesus was risen from the dead. Even the Jewish authorities recognized that the tomb was empty. There are only a few possible explnanations for this phenomena. One: the disciples stole the body. What makes this higly unlikely is the fact that the Jewish authorities posted guards at the tomb, guards whose job it was to guard this tomb with their lives. Scared Jewish fishermen would be in no form to fight these men to physically remove the body from the tomb. So it makes it highly improbable that this is a solution to the problem that Jesus' body was missing.

 

Second: the tomb was the wrong one. Given that the tomb where Jesus' body lay was public knowledge, it would only have taken a correction of this location to refute the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead.

 

What other alternative do we have? Inference to the best explanation shows us that if the body is missing from the tomb, it cannot be found by people who are trying to refute the resurrection and the location of the tomb was well-known, we must give some credence to the apostolic claim of the resurrection. This event, unlike any other major non-Christian world religion, is grounded in history. There has been no sound proof given to show that Jesus did not in fact rise from the dead. Given the miraculous claims of this statement, we do have to take it on faith. BUT this faith is not without its evidence. Much ink has been spilled defending the reliability of the Gospels and the NT as a whole, so I will not do that here. In my fairly well read opinion, the arguments in favor of the reliability of the Gospels greatly outweigh those in opposition, so we can take the accounts at face value.

 

That leaves us in an awkward position. If Christ did in fact rise, His claims are true. So you must make that decision. What do I do with this man who lived in Israel over 2000 years ago? If He is risen, Christianity is right, all other religions are wrong. You must then decide for yourself how you will deal with this. Will you accept Him for who He is? Or will you reject Christ and bear the burden of the negative repercussions that are to follow?

 

Why am I a Christian? The tomb is empty.

 

Well it will be interesting to see how many replies you will get about your stupid blind faith while the historical evidence of the resurrection is ignored and the flag of the all knowing science is proudly waved as if it the answer of all answers. I also find it interesting that these people who say they witnessed the Resurrection were willing to stake their very lives on it. There has to be credibility to staking your life on something even it you are called ignorant, for your refusal to make science a God because you already have one.

[Shyone]

This is what amazes me. If I say that I believe in a creator, you say that I kill any means of exploring the complexities of the universe. I am not in any way opposed to science, or looking for answers to questions, but I am opposed to thinking that science is all that there is. There are many things that are yet to be known, but that does not mean that there is no God. When the disciplines of science, theology, and philosophy were put at odds with each other, rather than being allowed to aid each other the entire world lost. Why is it that you feel you must reject one to accept the other. And how can you at the same time say you have an open mind?

Fair enough. I do not object to your belief that there is a god, or that the god sits at the right hand of himself, or that the earth rests on the back of a great turtle.

 

I object to the inclusion of such beliefs in the teaching of science classes, even as "controversy" or "alternative view points." IF one accepts the god hypothesis and is satisfied with its "explanatory power", then there is no reason to look further.

 

Scientific claims by religions have been and will be refuted. I think what you are looking for is a hiding place for god where scientists can't find him. "Please, just give us the beginning of the universe, and we'll even grant that evolution occurs by natural selection..." After all, many theists reason, what difference does it make to anyone?

 

I don't claim there is no god. I'm not omniscient. But if you say your car won't start because god is sending you a message, that doesn't mean you don't open the hood and look for the "real problem." See what I mean?

[Shyone]

Its been a while since I've posted on this site, so I want to state my reasons for remaining a Christian in response to Anterlman's broad overarching question of this thread.

 

That leaves us in an awkward position. If Christ did in fact rise, His claims are true. So you must make that decision. What do I do with this man who lived in Israel over 2000 years ago? If He is risen, Christianity is right, all other religions are wrong. You must then decide for yourself how you will deal with this. Will you accept Him for who He is? Or will you reject Christ and bear the burden of the negative repercussions that are to follow?

 

Why am I a Christian? The tomb is empty.

I was really surprized when I started reading archeology books and magazines. So many of the tombs of ancient Egypt and other areas don't have a body.

 

The mystery of the empty sarcophogus seemed so simple. Maybe it wasn't used. Maybe robbers broke in and stole the body.

 

 

But still, there it is. The tomb is empty.

[CalebMcCreary]

Its been a while since I've posted on this site, so I want to state my reasons for remaining a Christian in response to Anterlman's broad overarching question of this thread.

 

That leaves us in an awkward position. If Christ did in fact rise, His claims are true. So you must make that decision. What do I do with this man who lived in Israel over 2000 years ago? If He is risen, Christianity is right, all other religions are wrong. You must then decide for yourself how you will deal with this. Will you accept Him for who He is? Or will you reject Christ and bear the burden of the negative repercussions that are to follow?

 

Why am I a Christian? The tomb is empty.

I was really surprized when I started reading archeology books and magazines. So many of the tombs of ancient Egypt and other areas don't have a body.

 

The mystery of the empty sarcophogus seemed so simple. Maybe it wasn't used. Maybe robbers broke in and stole the body.

 

 

But still, there it is. The tomb is empty.

 

 

Point taken. But why are these tombs empty? Are there resurrection claims around them or are there incidences of tomb robbery (which are very high in Egypt). The fact is, Jesus' tomb was empty EVEN THOUGH ENEMIES TRIED TO FABRICATE STORIES TO THE CONTRARY THEY COULD NOT. That is the point about Jesus. Not only was the tomb empty, but people were proclaiming Him as the risen Messiah. This is what makes Jesus' empty tomb unique.

 

The fact that genocides have occurred throughout history does not downplay the significance of the Holocaust does it? Likewise, other empty tombs do not denigrate the significance of Jesus' empty tomb because of the significance that the resurrection plays in Christian belief. Without the resurrection, Christianity falls. Plain and simple. The hard truth is that a body could not be produced by Christianity's enemies even when they wanted to do so. Given an empty tomb and numerous eyewitness accounts of the risen Christ, inference to the best explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead. Until a better explanation can be given to explain the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances and the radical conversion of Jews who were not looking for a dying and rising Messiah to a band of people who staked their lives on this very radical claim in the face of Judaism that rejected it wholly, the resurrection as it stands in Christian orthodoxy must logically be given a hearing. To do otherwise, in the face of the historical evidence would be illogical.

 

:-) Have a nice day.

[Deva]

Hey Caleb can I say that I think you are just full of shit? Oh yeah I can, this is the Lion's Den. Have a nice day.

[CalebMcCreary]

Hey Caleb can I say that I think you are just full of shit? Oh yeah I can, this is the Lion's Den. Have a nice day.

 

 

How sweet of you.

 

The name calling is juvenile to say the least. Please feel free to contribute to the conversation at hand or keep your childish comments to yourself. Thanks.

[Shyone]

 

Point taken. But why are these tombs empty? Are there resurrection claims around them or are there incidences of tomb robbery (which are very high in Egypt). The fact is, Jesus' tomb was empty EVEN THOUGH ENEMIES TRIED TO FABRICATE STORIES TO THE CONTRARY THEY COULD NOT. That is the point about Jesus. Not only was the tomb empty, but people were proclaiming Him as the risen Messiah. This is what makes Jesus' empty tomb unique.

 

The fact that genocides have occurred throughout history does not downplay the significance of the Holocaust does it? Likewise, other empty tombs do not denigrate the significance of Jesus' empty tomb because of the significance that the resurrection plays in Christian belief. Without the resurrection, Christianity falls. Plain and simple. The hard truth is that a body could not be produced by Christianity's enemies even when they wanted to do so. Given an empty tomb and numerous eyewitness accounts of the risen Christ, inference to the best explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead. Until a better explanation can be given to explain the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances and the radical conversion of Jews who were not looking for a dying and rising Messiah to a band of people who staked their lives on this very radical claim in the face of Judaism that rejected it wholly, the resurrection as it stands in Christian orthodoxy must logically be given a hearing. To do otherwise, in the face of the historical evidence would be illogical.

 

:-) Have a nice day.

Actually, there is a lot of mythology surrounding the tombs of the pyramids of Giza. Remember that tiny passage pointing to the Star Sirius? The deceased was supposed to use that passage to guide him to the star where he would - whatever.

 

People wrote stories about what might have happened, and, like a good mystery writer, the stories attempt to make the impossible seem real.

 

1. Body missing.

Objection: Maybe stolen, maybe not placed there by Joseph of Arimethea

2. Guards placed to make sure #1 doesn't happen, and Joseph never had the body, it was... placed in the tomb by the Romans

Objection: No record or proof of guards, and no witnesses

3. Multiple witnesses!

Objection: accounts of witnesses inconsistent

4. Fuck! What do I have to write to make this shit story believable? I know, This guy put his fingers in Jesus holes!

Objection: So he survived?

5. No, he didn't "survive"! He was kind of mysterious-like. Hard to recognize. Transformed. Not just a zombie.

Objection: If you couldn't recognize him, how do you know it was him?

 

By this point, the resurrection accounts are finding different solutions to the questions people asked when asked to accept "the empty tomb." Multiple stories, irreconcilable and inconsistent.

 

Maybe "the dog ate your homework", but dead people don't come back to life.

 

Also, the holocaust 1) has multiple living witnesses, 2) videotape, 3) physical evidence from multiple places and sources (writing, camps, bodies, etc) and 4) is not miraculous, but rather horrific in ways that are strictly physical and unfortunately all-too-human.

 

Christianity = Religion FAIL

[Guest lionkiller]

This is what amazes me. If I say that I believe in a creator, you say that I kill any means of exploring the complexities of the universe. I am not in any way opposed to science, or looking for answers to questions, but I am opposed to thinking that science is all that there is. There are many things that are yet to be known, but that does not mean that there is no God. When the disciplines of science, theology, and philosophy were put at odds with each other, rather than being allowed to aid each other the entire world lost. Why is it that you feel you must reject one to accept the other. And how can you at the same time say you have an open mind?

Fair enough. I do not object to your belief that there is a god, or that the god sits at the right hand of himself, or that the earth rests on the back of a great turtle.

 

I object to the inclusion of such beliefs in the teaching of science classes, even as "controversy" or "alternative view points." IF one accepts the god hypothesis and is satisfied with its "explanatory power", then there is no reason to look further.

 

Scientific claims by religions have been and will be refuted. I think what you are looking for is a hiding place for god where scientists can't find him. "Please, just give us the beginning of the universe, and we'll even grant that evolution occurs by natural selection..." After all, many theists reason, what difference does it make to anyone?

 

I don't claim there is no god. I'm not omniscient. But if you say your car won't start because god is sending you a message, that doesn't mean you don't open the hood and look for the "real problem." See what I mean?

 

 

The question that I have to your objection that creationism should not be taught as an opposing view to evolution is this; I thought science is about questioning a hypothesis from all angles. Also, is it not the goal of science to welcome the disproof of a hypothesis if it furthers the advancement of knowledge? Why then would science wish to say we want to search for the truth by any means, but we want to begin by automatically dismissing this issue and not even allowing it to be known. Is Christianity that scarey to the cause of science, and if so should not they by scientific principle be given even more credence?

 

I mean, if the goal is looking for truth then let us look everywhere with equal allowance. And, if Creation and evolution are reconcilable, then why not reconcile them? If God creating matter and allowing the world freedom to develop brings greater understanding of the universe, why should we be scared to explore that?

 

And I agree completely, if my car doesn't start I will look under the hood for sure. But, I might also think that the delay could have been orchestrated by someone bigger than me for my benefit. It does not have not be an either or situation, and it concerns me that so many who say that their quest for truth is open to examination and reevaluation want to slam a door and nail it shut.

[Guest lionkiller]

 

Point taken. But why are these tombs empty? Are there resurrection claims around them or are there incidences of tomb robbery (which are very high in Egypt). The fact is, Jesus' tomb was empty EVEN THOUGH ENEMIES TRIED TO FABRICATE STORIES TO THE CONTRARY THEY COULD NOT. That is the point about Jesus. Not only was the tomb empty, but people were proclaiming Him as the risen Messiah. This is what makes Jesus' empty tomb unique.

 

The fact that genocides have occurred throughout history does not downplay the significance of the Holocaust does it? Likewise, other empty tombs do not denigrate the significance of Jesus' empty tomb because of the significance that the resurrection plays in Christian belief. Without the resurrection, Christianity falls. Plain and simple. The hard truth is that a body could not be produced by Christianity's enemies even when they wanted to do so. Given an empty tomb and numerous eyewitness accounts of the risen Christ, inference to the best explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead. Until a better explanation can be given to explain the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances and the radical conversion of Jews who were not looking for a dying and rising Messiah to a band of people who staked their lives on this very radical claim in the face of Judaism that rejected it wholly, the resurrection as it stands in Christian orthodoxy must logically be given a hearing. To do otherwise, in the face of the historical evidence would be illogical.

 

:-) Have a nice day.

Actually, there is a lot of mythology surrounding the tombs of the pyramids of Giza. Remember that tiny passage pointing to the Star Sirius? The deceased was supposed to use that passage to guide him to the star where he would - whatever.

 

People wrote stories about what might have happened, and, like a good mystery writer, the stories attempt to make the impossible seem real.

 

1. Body missing.

Objection: Maybe stolen, maybe not placed there by Joseph of Arimethea

2. Guards placed to make sure #1 doesn't happen, and Joseph never had the body, it was... placed in the tomb by the Romans

Objection: No record or proof of guards, and no witnesses

3. Multiple witnesses!

Objection: accounts of witnesses inconsistent

4. Fuck! What do I have to write to make this shit story believable? I know, This guy put his fingers in Jesus holes!

Objection: So he survived?

5. No, he didn't "survive"! He was kind of mysterious-like. Hard to recognize. Transformed. Not just a zombie.

Objection: If you couldn't recognize him, how do you know it was him?

 

By this point, the resurrection accounts are finding different solutions to the questions people asked when asked to accept "the empty tomb." Multiple stories, irreconcilable and inconsistent.

 

Maybe "the dog ate your homework", but dead people don't come back to life.

 

Also, the holocaust 1) has multiple living witnesses, 2) videotape, 3) physical evidence from multiple places and sources (writing, camps, bodies, etc) and 4) is not miraculous, but rather horrific in ways that are strictly physical and unfortunately all-too-human.

 

Christianity = Religion FAIL

 

 

Ok, but what about the people who were willing to die for their belief in the story. Maybe people today could be said to, "just not know any better", but those people who were there died for their belief in the resurrection. I have been labeled and authentic believe somehow, and I am new to the sight so am not sure how that happened, but this is for sure, I am not gonna give up my life for something that I know to be a lie! Nope not happening!

[Guest lionkiller]

Hey Caleb can I say that I think you are just full of shit? Oh yeah I can, this is the Lion's Den. Have a nice day.

 

 

Oh I love this. Let me get right to the point. It is on top of my head.

[Guest lionkiller]

This is what amazes me. If I say that I believe in a creator, you say that I kill any means of exploring the complexities of the universe. I am not in any way opposed to science, or looking for answers to questions, but I am opposed to thinking that science is all that there is. There are many things that are yet to be known, but that does not mean that there is no God. When the disciplines of science, theology, and philosophy were put at odds with each other, rather than being allowed to aid each other the entire world lost. Why is it that you feel you must reject one to accept the other. And how can you at the same time say you have an open mind?

Fair enough. I do not object to your belief that there is a god, or that the god sits at the right hand of himself, or that the earth rests on the back of a great turtle.

 

I object to the inclusion of such beliefs in the teaching of science classes, even as "controversy" or "alternative view points." IF one accepts the god hypothesis and is satisfied with its "explanatory power", then there is no reason to look further.

 

Scientific claims by religions have been and will be refuted. I think what you are looking for is a hiding place for god where scientists can't find him. "Please, just give us the beginning of the universe, and we'll even grant that evolution occurs by natural selection..." After all, many theists reason, what difference does it make to anyone?

 

I don't claim there is no god. I'm not omniscient. But if you say your car won't start because god is sending you a message, that doesn't mean you don't open the hood and look for the "real problem." See what I mean?

 

 

The question that I have to your objection that creationism should not be taught as an opposing view to evolution is this; I thought science is about questioning a hypothesis from all angles. Also, is it not the goal of science to welcome the disproof of a hypothesis if it furthers the advancement of knowledge? Why then would science wish to say we want to search for the truth by any means, but we want to begin by automatically dismissing this issue and not even allowing it to be known. Is Christianity that scarey to the cause of science, and if so should not they by scientific principle be given even more credence?

 

I mean, if the goal is looking for truth then let us look everywhere with equal allowance. And, if Creation and evolution are reconcilable, then why not reconcile them? If God creating matter and allowing the world freedom to develop brings greater understanding of the universe, why should we be scared to explore that?

 

And I agree completely, if my car doesn't start I will look under the hood for sure. But, I might also think that the delay could have been orchestrated by someone bigger than me for my benefit. It does not have not be an either or situation, and it concerns me that so many who say that their quest for truth is open to examination and reevaluation want to slam a door and nail it shut.

 

 

Hey shy let me also say that I appreciate your willingness to discuss and just throw out trash like Deva

[Shyone]

 

 

The question that I have to your objection that creationism should not be taught as an opposing view to evolution is this; I thought science is about questioning a hypothesis from all angles. Also, is it not the goal of science to welcome the disproof of a hypothesis if it furthers the advancement of knowledge? Why then would science wish to say we want to search for the truth by any means, but we want to begin by automatically dismissing this issue and not even allowing it to be known. Is Christianity that scarey to the cause of science, and if so should not they by scientific principle be given even more credence?

 

I mean, if the goal is looking for truth then let us look everywhere with equal allowance. And, if Creation and evolution are reconcilable, then why not reconcile them? If God creating matter and allowing the world freedom to develop brings greater understanding of the universe, why should we be scared to explore that?

 

And I agree completely, if my car doesn't start I will look under the hood for sure. But, I might also think that the delay could have been orchestrated by someone bigger than me for my benefit. It does not have not be an either or situation, and it concerns me that so many who say that their quest for truth is open to examination and reevaluation want to slam a door and nail it shut.

That is the main reason that people are not anxious to allow religious beliefs into the science classroom. Christians (in particular) are not content to have "Non-overlapping magesteria." They want to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and they specifically want to have religious ideas treated as science. Creationism is not a theory. It is the antithesis of a theory because it seeks to substitute the miraculous for the mechanistic. And I do mean substitute. You may see it as "discussion". Fine. You may even see it as equal (or even peripheral) competition. Fine. In reality, however, if the religious have their way, and if they were/are powerful enough to have their way, there won't be any competing ideas. Evolution is not even a subject in most fundamentalist religious schools (except perhaps as an object of scorn).

 

Does it have to be "an either or situation"? Like the Taliban, American Christians will only allow science to go so far. Like language police, they will hover over science and try to keep out anything that they find objectionable or that threatens their faith, regardless of how well established, researched and documented in how many different ways.

 

Teacher: "Class, today we will talk about the development of species and evolution."

Taliban (at the back of the class): "Micro - evolution."

Teacher: "Yes, of course. Species change with time as a result of random mutations-

Taliban: "Not random. Guided by God."

Teacher: "yes, of course. The favorable mutations (pause - no objection) will be passed on to offspring, and natural selection will-

Taliban: "God's providence."

Teacher: "yes, of course, God's providence will determine which mutations are preserved and which are discarded."

 

Imagine the same scenario in a research lab. A scientist wants to study the genes from multiple fruit flies to see how random mutations can be favorable without loss of function or forming a fully functioning end organ. Lab director knows this is an attempt to verify a proposed genetic mechanism for evolutionary change, so he cuts off financing and instead grants it to the Christian who wants to pray and get the answer to how everything actually happened! The last time he prayed, his answer was "God did it" and the lab director was exceedingly pleased.

 

Are Creation and evolution reconcilable? The fundamental element in the theory of evolution is the relationship between mutations and the unforgiving and sometimes cruel competition in nature leaving the healthiest animals and plants, the most competitive, and the best adapted. Even ID suggests that God manipulated a gene here, favored a species there, and made it all happen - nothing random, no competition, no cruelty needed. Not only are these not reconcilable, they are not even in the same class of endeavor. Creation or any theory with supernatural overtones is mythology, religion or fantasy. Testable theories with verifiable results comprise science.

[Shyone]

 

Ok, but what about the people who were willing to die for their belief in the story. Maybe people today could be said to, "just not know any better", but those people who were there died for their belief in the resurrection. I have been labeled and authentic believe somehow, and I am new to the sight so am not sure how that happened, but this is for sure, I am not gonna give up my life for something that I know to be a lie! Nope not happening!

So you are a Muslim? They certainly are willing do die for their beliefs. So are the Hindus.

 

Heck so was Giordano Bruno.

 

Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.

Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.

Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.

Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.

Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.

Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.

Dealing in magics and divination.

Denying the Virginity of Mary.

 

Dying for a cause or belief does not make it true or even good. A lot of Germans supported the nationalism that ultimately proved to be detrimental, and their philosophies wrong.

 

You might argue that the Apostles were closer to the original events than we are, so they would be less likely to be fooled, but the Mormons have suffered for their beliefs including those that went with Joseph Smith. Smith himself was executed by a mob. Does that sound familiar?

 

You might want to read this thread to get some more objections to the idea that suffering and dying makes a belief correct.

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/26280-if-people-are-willing-to-suffer-only-for-the-truth/

[Deva]

Hey Caleb can I say that I think you are just full of shit? Oh yeah I can, this is the Lion's Den. Have a nice day.

 

 

How sweet of you.

 

The name calling is juvenile to say the least. Please feel free to contribute to the conversation at hand or keep your childish comments to yourself. Thanks.

 

Why thank you.

 

I'll say and do what I damn well please. I don't answer to you, nor am I afraid of Christian "repercussions"

[Kuroikaze]

This is what amazes me. If I say that I believe in a creator, you say that I kill any means of exploring the complexities of the universe. I am not in any way opposed to science, or looking for answers to questions, but I am opposed to thinking that science is all that there is. There are many things that are yet to be known, but that does not mean that there is no God. When the disciplines of science, theology, and philosophy were put at odds with each other, rather than being allowed to aid each other the entire world lost. Why is it that you feel you must reject one to accept the other. And how can you at the same time say you have an open mind?

 

 

To me an open mind means a willingness to consider other viewpoints. I am more that willing to CONSIDER the view point posited in Christianity. Hell I was a christian for 6 years, ranging from super fundamentalist to slightly liberal and everywhere in between during those years, so I have certainly given it consideration, wouldn't you agree?

 

However, this does not me I will accept the viewpoint, just consider it. If some farmer in Nebraska says he was abducted by aliens I will consider it, but when he has not a shred of evidence to backup his claim then I will likely conclude he is just crazy.

 

Religion gets the same chance as that man, it is welcome to make the case, but without any solid independently verifiable evidence, I am forced to conclude that it is likely untrue.

 

Science is not a thing, but a process, and I find that reason and science offers the best process I have seen for distinguishing true things from false ones. You include theology in your list, but listening to theologians argue always makes me laugh, their various positions on how the world works all come down to opinions, and interpretations of a 2,000 year old text. Science is infinitely more interesting than anything theology has to offer.

 

I am perfectly open minded, I will consider any idea, but I only accept those that meet the burden of evidence.

 

 

The reason that creationism does not belong in the science classroom is because it does not follow the process that is required for science. If it cannot be demonstrated using the scientific method then then it does not belong in the science classroom, period. It would barely qualify as a hypothesis, no where near the exalted position of "theory" that is held by evolution.

[CalebMcCreary]

Hey Caleb can I say that I think you are just full of shit? Oh yeah I can, this is the Lion's Den. Have a nice day.

 

 

How sweet of you.

 

The name calling is juvenile to say the least. Please feel free to contribute to the conversation at hand or keep your childish comments to yourself. Thanks.

 

Why thank you.

 

I'll say and do what I damn well please. I don't answer to you, nor am I afraid of Christian "repercussions"

 

You may not answer to me...but at least be civil. Unless something that I have to say strikes a deeper nerve with you? Is that why you think I'm full of it? Decide for yourself.

[Kuroikaze]

 

Well it will be interesting to see how many replies you will get about your stupid blind faith while the historical evidence of the resurrection is ignored and the flag of the all knowing science is proudly waved as if it the answer of all answers. I also find it interesting that these people who say they witnessed the Resurrection were willing to stake their very lives on it. There has to be credibility to staking your life on something even it you are called ignorant, for your refusal to make science a God because you already have one.

 

Historical evidence? Where is this fabled evidence, I hear Christians yap about it all the time, but I have yet to see any thing compelling.

 

I like history, and I enjoy is study. The process of historiography has been designed to be as scientific as it can be given the lack of repeatability that exists in the process, so I generally trust the conclusions of history.

 

Everything I read, however, generally concludes that there is virtually no extra biblical evidence of Jesus' existence, must less resurrection, so if you have something to add, by all means present away, just don't expect me to accept it without critically examining it.

 

believing in something despite evidence to the contrary is not laudable, it is laughable. I am certain you realize that people being willing to die for a belief does not entail said belief being true, or are you saying those people who killed themselves in that jonesburough cult were believing in something true?

 

People can believe rather silly things and even stake their lives on those beliefs, our brain is rather unreliable in many ways, and often takes shortcuts which result in erroneous conclusions. That is what the scientific method is for, a process to help eliminate those problems.

[Guest]

For me, the reason I am a Christian is because of the historical fact of the empty tomb of Jesus Christ. All four Gospel narratives claim that Jesus was risen from the dead. Even the Jewish authorities recognized that the tomb was empty. There are only a few possible explnanations for this phenomena. One: the disciples stole the body. What makes this higly unlikely is the fact that the Jewish authorities posted guards at the tomb, guards whose job it was to guard this tomb with their lives. Scared Jewish fishermen would be in no form to fight these men to physically remove the body from the tomb. So it makes it highly improbable that this is a solution to the problem that Jesus' body was missing.

 

Second: the tomb was the wrong one. Given that the tomb where Jesus' body lay was public knowledge, it would only have taken a correction of this location to refute the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead.

 

What other alternative do we have? Inference to the best explanation shows us that if the body is missing from the tomb, it cannot be found by people who are trying to refute the resurrection and the location of the tomb was well-known, we must give some credence to the apostolic claim of the resurrection. This event, unlike any other major non-Christian world religion, is grounded in history. There has been no sound proof given to show that Jesus did not in fact rise from the dead. Given the miraculous claims of this statement, we do have to take it on faith. BUT this faith is not without its evidence. Much ink has been spilled defending the reliability of the Gospels and the NT as a whole, so I will not do that here. In my fairly well read opinion, the arguments in favor of the reliability of the Gospels greatly outweigh those in opposition, so we can take the accounts at face value.

 

 

Historical fact? The gospels are nothing but hearsay. How is that historical fact?

 

And how in the world is "rising from the dead" the "most likely" explanation for an empty tomb?? There's no sound proof that Jesus even existed.

 

Jesus' non-existence is actually the most likely explanation for an empty tomb.

[Guest]

 

Everything I read, however, generally concludes that there is virtually no extra biblical evidence of Jesus' existence, must less resurrection, so if you have something to add, by all means present away, just don't expect me to accept it without critically examining it.

 

Dammit, you got to it before I did!

[Karhoof]

Hi lionkiller.

Time will tell how well your username suits you here.

 

 

Why is it that you feel you must reject one to accept the other. And how can you at the same time say you have an open mind?

You've set up a false dichotomy here. For most of us who looked deeper into the sciences, we found that god had increasingly less and less to do with any creation of the world we see. It becomes very difficult to believe in god when "HIS WORD" as written in the bible is wrong on so many levels.

 

 

 

The question that I have to your objection that creationism should not be taught as an opposing view to evolution is this; I thought science is about questioning a hypothesis from all angles. Also, is it not the goal of science to welcome the disproof of a hypothesis if it furthers the advancement of knowledge? Why then would science wish to say we want to search for the truth by any means, but we want to begin by automatically dismissing this issue and not even allowing it to be known. Is Christianity that scarey to the cause of science, and if so should not they by scientific principle be given even more credence?

 

I mean, if the goal is looking for truth then let us look everywhere with equal allowance. And, if Creation and evolution are reconcilable, then why not reconcile them? If God creating matter and allowing the world freedom to develop brings greater understanding of the universe, why should we be scared to explore that?

Now we come to one of the problems here. Creationists want to see god introduced into the science classroom.

I have to ask. Where are the testable theories in creation? This is the very crux of science. Propose a hypothosis, predict an outcome and test for repeatable results.

Where is god? Can we have him create something for us in a lab so we can test these hypothosies you would have children learn?

Alas, no. We cannot. Because these are merely hypothosies that you propose. Nothing testable at all.

Not science.

 

Science is not scared of god. It shows that (at least as far as the biblical one) he doesn't exist.

 

 

 

And I agree completely, if my car doesn't start I will look under the hood for sure. But, I might also think that the delay could have been orchestrated by someone bigger than me for my benefit. It does not have not be an either or situation, and it concerns me that so many who say that their quest for truth is open to examination and reevaluation want to slam a door and nail it shut.

God is the underlying cause of everything we don't understand? How does a bad plug wire become an "act of god"?

If everything is orchestrated by this "someone bigger", wouldn't it follow that he also allows for incredible suffering and evil to exist too?

 

 

 

I would like to ask you an honest question. Think about it and please give me your honest answer.

If you had been born in Iraq, what do you think your religion would be?

[Shyone]

 

Historical fact? The gospels are nothing but hearsay. How is that historical fact?

 

And how in the world is "rising from the dead" the "most likely" explanation for an empty tomb?? There's no sound proof that Jesus even existed.

 

Jesus' non-existence is actually the most likely explanation for an empty tomb.

You bring up an excellent point. Rising from the dead is impossible, and therefore the least likely explanation for anything, not just empty tombs.

 

There were quite a few people who are missing and presumed dead as a result of the tsunami that struck India. Would anyone suggest that all of the presumed dead that are missing have arisen from the dead and ascended bodily into Nirvana? (or the Galactic Overlord Xenu's spaceship)

 

They are lost, most never to be found, and the lack of a body means nothing supernatural.

[Ouroboros]

Wilyfem and Shyone,

 

You're absolutely right. My question is, why do Christians hold the impossible event of some fantasy true over all other possible explanations?

 

(sarc)

Observation: Jesus is missing.

 

Plausible explanation: It must be because Overlord Qwerty dematerialized Jesus's body and teleported it to Mars.

 

Implausible explanation: Of course it can't be theft, deceit, or trickery, since those things are too commonly used by every religious group, but not by this particular and special little group I believe in.

(/sarc)

[Ouroboros]

Lionkiller,

 

Have you been here before? It seems like you came here with a preconceived opinions about us from get-go.

 

Do you consider yourself a good witness and present Jesus in a way that would attract people?

 

Didn't Jesus condemn and rant against the religious leaders while acting loving and caring to the so-called lost sinners?

 

So what are we? You consider us stagnant religious leaders who demand obedience by the law from an old holy book? Or do you consider us the group which Jesus supposedly loved and cared for?

 

Or put it this way, you're not doing what Jesus would do, you're doing what your sinful flesh wants to do. You're a sinner worse than we.

[NotBlinded]

The question that I have to your objection that creationism should not be taught as an opposing view to evolution is this; I thought science is about questioning a hypothesis from all angles. Also, is it not the goal of science to welcome the disproof of a hypothesis if it furthers the advancement of knowledge? Why then would science wish to say we want to search for the truth by any means, but we want to begin by automatically dismissing this issue and not even allowing it to be known. Is Christianity that scarey to the cause of science, and if so should not they by scientific principle be given even more credence?

 

I mean, if the goal is looking for truth then let us look everywhere with equal allowance. And, if Creation and evolution are reconcilable, then why not reconcile them? If God creating matter and allowing the world freedom to develop brings greater understanding of the universe, why should we be scared to explore that?

 

And I agree completely, if my car doesn't start I will look under the hood for sure. But, I might also think that the delay could have been orchestrated by someone bigger than me for my benefit. It does not have not be an either or situation, and it concerns me that so many who say that their quest for truth is open to examination and reevaluation want to slam a door and nail it shut.

How are you going to look everywhere with equal allowance? Are we going to have the children going to school 24/7 to give equal allowance to all the world's religions + science?

 

Can you see where your prejudice is? Christianity has nothing to do with God other than being a story about God. There are many stories about God.

[Deva]

Hey shy let me also say that I appreciate your willingness to discuss and just throw out trash like Deva

 

Hey tag-team-troll, I wasn't talking to you but if the shoe fits...