Vigile's Question In Poll Thread

[Abiyoyo]

Just thinking out loud here:

 

1)If you are still an xian holding out against all hope that your beliefs are true then maybe a new spin on apologetics would be welcome.

 

2)If you left the faith out of frustration but still want it to be true for emotional or other reasons then maybe a new spin would be welcome.

 

3)However, if Humpty has fallen off the wall for you and he is already rotten and smelly, how could a new spin have any real effect on you?

 

I don't think the last statement is closed minded, though it may come across that way from an outside perspective. What I'm saying here is for someone like me who really wanted to believe but who has long since been exposed to enough contra evidence that disproves the faith, it would take much more than a finely tuned argument to restore faith. It would take, for lack of a better word, a miracle, or at the very least some damned straight forward answers to some pretty impossible questions. Spin won't cut it.

 

I want to answer this as well as open a topic that can discuss this more. Vigile, I don't think the last statement is close minded. You asked to read this post in lieu of my response from the poll, How Have You Been Persuaded So Far?; which was this.

 

I voted the last option, and gave my reasons.

View PostAbiyoyo, on 27 August 2009 - 11:34 AM, said:

 

View Postnotblindedbytheblight, on 27 August 2009 - 11:26 AM, said:

 

View PostAbiyoyo, on 27 August 2009 - 10:03 AM, said:

I went with the last option

 

You can't answer that, you were already "that way".

 

 

Actually I wasn't. I had many doubts from discussions on this board, and research from dialogue here has affirmed my faith.

 

I say the last option isn't close minded because when all the available information becomes at a mouse click away; it is frustrating and difficult to correlate. I have been around here for about 4 years now and have done more research and study than I ever have.

 

It starts with a topic, namely, a topic that disproves the faith. The type of faith is the reason for multiple responses, and direction. One may be literalistic, believe the Bible is the authoritative Word from God, charismatic believing all the magical things still happen today as they did then, etc.

 

Status is another factor of determining direction. What status of faith, Christianity, church setting, etc one may be involved with. Is one a missionary, preacher, educator, youth minister, normal church goer that isn't involved, in school, what type of school, etc.

 

And lastly, your inner being, state of mind, psychological state, esteem level, Where is that person on a 'them' level. Them being their inner workings. If someone is on fire for God, they will respond different than someone that has become stagnant toward religion and God.

 

I believe all these things combine to make each person in a different capacity, some may be like others, yet all are different in their own individual ways.

 

Me. I was on fire for God, fresh from the refinery when I first came to this site. Only to be disturbed, and utterly confused beyond imagine. I do believe that at one point on this site, I was there; there as to not return to my faith. But, I stopped researching upon receiving for arguements, and began fitting the pieces of the puzzle scattered in my brain, together.

 

This was a grueling and almost more depressing event, as it is still ongoing. The process involves hours, days, months of research, studying, crediting sources, and applying each piece to another piece. I want to layout a outline of where my mind as been for the last four years.

 

I Beginning Conflicts

A. The Bible contradicts itself in various ways.

B. The various message's from the New Testament.

C. The content in the Bible can be unethical at times, especially in the OT

D. Evidence of the Bible being remotely accurate on events and time frames.

 

II Theological Conflicts

A. The Trinity

B. Variations of denominational doctrines.

C. Formation of different sects throughout history.

 

III Outside the Bible

A. The Gnostic perception

B. The Greek Gods and culture

C. Egyptian Gods and culture

D. Variations of other entities of similarity to Christ

E. People throughout history affected, or affecting Christianity

F. Germanic mythology

 

IV Archaeology of Christianity and other religions

A. Creationist vs Evolutionist

B. Biblical artifacts

C. Non Biblical artifacts

 

These are just a few of the many things I have researched, studied, and spend months upon months piecing together. I always started with the immediate dilemma that presented itself in my mind, and researched. Like I said earlier, at some points throughout it all, I almost lost my faith.

 

I will say that I think the single most effective thing that caused me to still believe was the history of Christianity. Many here will say that this and that is false, forged, made up, edited by the church, a big conspiracy to gain power, etc. But, the fact is that if the experts of Christianity within Roman history are not true, forged, made up; then society in general has lost a piece of Roman history. One example is in The Annals. Many have said that the reference to Christians in the Annals was forged, but studies from secular historians show that it isn't. That was the authors writing, and the correction was from the author; not by a clergy as speculated from different dates.

 

The power of a rumor is tremendous.

[MathGeek]

Unlike you, Abiyoyo, even as a Christian I really had no fire to learn about Christianity at its most basic and unadulterated like you have. Even after the loss (I sometimes wonder if I ever had faith or have faith now), I really have no urge to pull out the apologetics book I purchased after the fact and read them. I really think once the faith in God itself was extinguished, it was just a systematic crumbling from there.

 

I feel Christianity is a deductive case...

 

1) God exists.

2) God created good and evil.

3) God created humans.

4) God became hidden.

5) God sent Jesus down to redeem Man.

 

I know that is a really piss-poor case for Christianity, but I still feel that if the God of the Bible is the one that created humans and evil and hides himself from the great majority of humans, then logically it follows that he cannot justify his own existence. Therefore, if he cannot justify his own existence, then why should I believe in the Resurrection regardless of what the historical evidence says.

 

The problem is further compounded by the fact that most Christians learn about Jesus as accepted fact FIRST, not the other way around. The truth of the matter is that only a select few witnesses saw Christ resurrected and the system of Christianity was built from there. As time passes, we accept Christ's resurrection as axiomatic and it is expected upon us to investigate the claim. If God is so worried about me being his follower, why not give me and all the skeptics here a strong miracle that would convince me permanently.

 

I say once the passion is gone, what is the point in pursuing the evidence where it leads.

[florduh]

I will say that I think the single most effective thing that caused me to still believe was the history of Christianity.

 

I wonder what a valid history of a religion has to do with the validity of the religion itself. We have an unassailable factual history of Scientology.

 

I made similar inquiries into the points you mentioned. I wanted desperately for the Bible and Christianity to make sense. I thought I just had to be wrong as the evidence against the religion mounted. One day I tired of the gymnastics and looked at the facts dispassionately, as if I were studying the Koran and Islam.

 

The Bible, and its religions, fail all the tests that an unbiased rational mind can bring to it.

[Shyone]

I will say that I think the single most effective thing that caused me to still believe was the history of Christianity. Many here will say that this and that is false, forged, made up, edited by the church, a big conspiracy to gain power, etc. But, the fact is that if the experts of Christianity within Roman history are not true, forged, made up; then society in general has lost a piece of Roman history. One example is in The Annals. Many have said that the reference to Christians in the Annals was forged, but studies from secular historians show that it isn't. That was the authors writing, and the correction was from the author; not by a clergy as speculated from different dates.

 

The power of a rumor is tremendous.

You have certainly done your research.

 

I don't mean to push you over the edge, but have you really studied the history of early Christianity? I know an elderly catholic woman that attended a course at a university of the history of the church, and she was beyond flabbergasted. The turning point for her was the behavior of the popes.

 

Of course, for someone that is biblically oriented and reads Acts and sees that as the "early history", then how early Christians behaved is irrelevant, and it may depend on how you define the "early history of the church."

 

I see interpolations into biblical texts to change the theology, "pious fraud" in the works of ancient historians to make a case for Christianity, and the destruction of the Library at Alexandria in 391.

 

Paul was an admitted liar (Rom. 3:7-8). The change in theology in the New Testament was done for purposes of convenience (e.g. Rom. 7). You know what I'm talking about.

 

For me, though, the final blow was that Christianity is necessarily dependent on the Old Testament - by prophecy, continuity, and Jesus own words. As Ingersoll wrote, "One of the foundation stones of our faith is the Old Testament. If that book is not true, if its authors were unaided men, if it contains blunders and falsehoods, then that stone crumbles to dust...The Old Testament must be thrown aside. It is no longer a foundation. It has crumbled."

[Abiyoyo]

I will say that I think the single most effective thing that caused me to still believe was the history of Christianity. Many here will say that this and that is false, forged, made up, edited by the church, a big conspiracy to gain power, etc. But, the fact is that if the experts of Christianity within Roman history are not true, forged, made up; then society in general has lost a piece of Roman history. One example is in The Annals. Many have said that the reference to Christians in the Annals was forged, but studies from secular historians show that it isn't. That was the authors writing, and the correction was from the author; not by a clergy as speculated from different dates.

 

The power of a rumor is tremendous.

You have certainly done your research.

 

I don't mean to push you over the edge, but have you really studied the history of early Christianity? I know an elderly catholic woman that attended a course at a university of the history of the church, and she was beyond flabbergasted. The turning point for her was the behavior of the popes.

 

Of course, for someone that is biblically oriented and reads Acts and sees that as the "early history", then how early Christians behaved is irrelevant, and it may depend on how you define the "early history of the church."

 

 

 

Why? Why was the turning point for her 'the behavior of the popes'? Why does the behavior of the popes have an affect, or would have affect on one's study of belief? Unless, they are Catholic, and believe the Catholic Holy See are one with God and is the sole essence of Christianity. Of course, that would simply mean her faith and belief of her God was justified through an organization, and through people, instead of God.

 

I personally don't believe it is good to lie in any situation if you truly follow the teachings of Christ. Are there situations that people would have to lie, as in a authoritative role, President, Secret service, FBI,etc. Yes, but I do not attend that role.

 

Should we lie to 'protect' the Word of God, to further the good cause, to justify the unjustifiable; No, I don't believe that God would need anyone to lie for His furthering of His Word on this planet.

 

So, the Popes lied. Does that diminish the history of Christianity. Not at all. Maybe the Catholic organization, but not the whole religion.

 

Does that answer your questions?

[bdp]

...umm...there's no 'god'...

[Abiyoyo]

...umm...there's no 'god'...

 

If there is no god, then there is no afterlife. Agree?

[Shyone]

Should we lie to 'protect' the Word of God, to further the good cause, to justify the unjustifiable; No, I don't believe that God would need anyone to lie for His furthering of His Word on this planet.

 

So, the Popes lied. Does that diminish the history of Christianity. Not at all. Maybe the Catholic organization, but not the whole religion.

 

Does that answer your questions?

No..., not really. I mentioned lying popes, the Vicars of God, but I didn't mention the other things; adultery, bribery, extortion, murder.

 

The Early Church History is made by men, written by men, and read by men. They acted like men. In defense of their faith, they faced lions (and other threats) and were martyred in the same manner as the Islamic extremists.

 

I can't see anything that is good about the early history of the church. And even if there were good acts, these speak to humans acting humanly.

 

Is there something you're seeing that I missed? Miracles maybe? Like the Hindu Milk Miracle?

 

Ghosts and goblins and supernatural happenings are the stuff of our prescientific history. You would be the first in line to offer a rational explanation for a miracle if it happened today because you're too smart to be taken in by charlatans, rogues and liars.

 

So what is it? Inspirational behavior? I like reading stories of the heroic activities of Medal of Honor recipients, and I find their acts to be admirable.

 

Are you sure you're not just grasping at straws? God is mythical, Jesus isn't God who is mythical, the Old Testament is a lousy source for prophecy about Jesus, and prophecy is bunk anyway. But the early church history convinces you that Christianity is true?

 

It's like the top story of a building of faith is still there, and the other 99 floors are gone. What's holding up this top story?

[Shyone]

...umm...there's no 'god'...

 

If there is no god, then there is no afterlife. Agree?

I would agree with that.

[Ouroboros]

...umm...there's no 'god'...

 

If there is no god, then there is no afterlife. Agree?

Sorry, but even if I don't think there is an afterlife, it doesn't necessarily has to be a connection between a god and afterlife. It could just as well be that the soul is in itself an eternal entity, but without memory of it's past existence, and that this soul or spirit continues to live on after our bodily death. Just as God could be non-temporal, the spirit which animate a living being could be as well. If we have a spirit, why does it have to be created to exist? Why can't it be eternal? If God can be an eternal spirit, then why can't our spirit be too? The spirit doesn't think or remember things, it just is. And the reason why we don't remember our past is because memory is stored in the physical mind and not in the immaterial spirit.

 

Right?

[Abiyoyo]

...umm...there's no 'god'...

 

If there is no god, then there is no afterlife. Agree?

Sorry, but even if I don't think there is an afterlife, it doesn't necessarily has to be a connection between a god and afterlife. It could just as well be that the soul is in itself an eternal entity, but without memory of it's past existence, and that this soul or spirit continues to live on after our bodily death. Just as God could be non-temporal, the spirit which animate a living being could be as well. If we have a spirit, why does it have to be created to exist? Why can't it be eternal? If God can be an eternal spirit, then why can't our spirit be too? The spirit doesn't think or remember things, it just is. And the reason why we don't remember our past is because memory is stored in the physical mind and not in the immaterial spirit.

 

Right?

 

I don't necessarily agree with that Hans, but I also can't say that it's impossible. I guess that just depends on one's belief. IMO personally, if I did agree with you about what you just said; I might as well add God, Heaven, etc. The same argument goes both ways. Why not an eternal supreme being that created the spirit that animated the body?

[Shyone]

 

I don't necessarily agree with that Hans, but I also can't say that it's impossible. I guess that just depends on one's belief. IMO personally, if I did agree with you about what you just said; I might as well add God, Heaven, etc. The same argument goes both ways. Why not an eternal supreme being that created the spirit that animated the body?

Why not a million dollars in my bank account? I think I'll go spend it.

 

After all, if I have enough faith, it must be so.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Are you sure you're not just grasping at straws? God is mythical, Jesus isn't God who is mythical, the Old Testament is a lousy source for prophecy about Jesus, and prophecy is bunk anyway. But the early church history convinces you that Christianity is true?

 

 

 

Let me get this straight .....You are saying that the Old Testament is a lousy source for prophecy about Jesus? Okay. I guess that all depends on your source for Messianic prophecy.

[Abiyoyo]

But the early church history convinces you that Christianity is true?

 

 

 

It convinces me that no matter what you want to think, the history will always be there. Greek mythology is taught in schools. Why not Christian History? Because it is bogus? Where the Greek Gods bogus?

[bdp]

...umm...there's no 'god'...

 

If there is no god, then there is no afterlife. Agree?

 

of course there isn't - everyone knows that.

[Shyone]

But the early church history convinces you that Christianity is true?

 

 

 

It convinces me that no matter what you want to think, the history will always be there. Greek mythology is taught in schools. Why not Christian History? Because it is bogus? Where the Greek Gods bogus?

Teaching current religions is controversial because teachers would have difficulty not inserting their own biases. That includes other current religions such as Hinduism and Islam. Greek, Nordic and pagan mythologies are no longer controversial because they are dead religions.

 

When Christianity finally dies, it too will be taught in schools.

 

What does this have to do with "Truth"?

[Shyone]

 

 

Are you sure you're not just grasping at straws? God is mythical, Jesus isn't God who is mythical, the Old Testament is a lousy source for prophecy about Jesus, and prophecy is bunk anyway. But the early church history convinces you that Christianity is true?

 

 

 

Let me get this straight .....You are saying that the Old Testament is a lousy source for prophecy about Jesus? Okay. I guess that all depends on your source for Messianic prophecy.

Messianic prophecy is bunk. Many religions have had messiahs, and none are real. Sun Myung Moon is hailed as a messiah by his adherents. Here's a list of Jewish Messiah claimants- and they use the same source as you.

 

There is no such thing as prophecy or fortune telling. I could list hundreds of failed prophecies, but you would not see that they have any bearing on whatever scriptures you might deem to be prophetic. I could even point out prophecies from the old testament that were made after the fact or simply didn't come true. I could show you that the prophecies of the Messiah applied to Jesus were taken way out of context and not intended to be prophecies in the first place. I could show you prophecies in the new testament that didn't come true.

 

The biblical prophets and those who "created" prophecies out of unrelated texts were no more accurate than Hal Lindsey.

 

Perhaps, if the issue of prophecy seems relevant to you, you should read the good and the bad about them and consider that the Psychic Hotline went out of business, and they had no clue beforehand.

[Ouroboros]

I don't necessarily agree with that Hans, but I also can't say that it's impossible. I guess that just depends on one's belief. IMO personally, if I did agree with you about what you just said; I might as well add God, Heaven, etc. The same argument goes both ways. Why not an eternal supreme being that created the spirit that animated the body?

That's right. And why not two supreme beings? Or an infinite amount of supreme beings? Or none? When it comes to imagination, anything goes.

 

But my point was about your statement, or question, that an afterlife requires a god of some kind, and I don't agree with that. The point is not if you can believe in a god or not, or if you can believe in an afterlife or not, but just the simple conclusion that an afterlife does not require a god. That's my point.

 

It's like saying: for good flavors to exist, there must exist apples. But it's based on a personal view that apples are tasty, and tasty things must be derived from tasty apples. But we both know it isn't so. That same goes for afterlife. There could be an afterlife, but it doesn't have to be the Theistic version.

[oddbird1963]

 

 

Are you sure you're not just grasping at straws? God is mythical, Jesus isn't God who is mythical, the Old Testament is a lousy source for prophecy about Jesus, and prophecy is bunk anyway. But the early church history convinces you that Christianity is true?

 

 

 

Let me get this straight .....You are saying that the Old Testament is a lousy source for prophecy about Jesus? Okay. I guess that all depends on your source for Messianic prophecy.

 

Abiyoyo,

 

Which prophecies in particular do you find convinciing as messianic prophesies that predict Jesus?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Are you sure you're not just grasping at straws? God is mythical, Jesus isn't God who is mythical, the Old Testament is a lousy source for prophecy about Jesus, and prophecy is bunk anyway. But the early church history convinces you that Christianity is true?

 

 

 

Let me get this straight .....You are saying that the Old Testament is a lousy source for prophecy about Jesus? Okay. I guess that all depends on your source for Messianic prophecy.

Messianic prophecy is bunk. Many religions have had messiahs, and none are real. Sun Myung Moon is hailed as a messiah by his adherents. Here's a list of Jewish Messiah claimants- and they use the same source as you.

 

There is no such thing as prophecy or fortune telling. I could list hundreds of failed prophecies, but you would not see that they have any bearing on whatever scriptures you might deem to be prophetic. I could even point out prophecies from the old testament that were made after the fact or simply didn't come true. I could show you that the prophecies of the Messiah applied to Jesus were taken way out of context and not intended to be prophecies in the first place. I could show you prophecies in the new testament that didn't come true.

 

The biblical prophets and those who "created" prophecies out of unrelated texts were no more accurate than Hal Lindsey.

 

Perhaps, if the issue of prophecy seems relevant to you, you should read the good and the bad about them and consider that the Psychic Hotline went out of business, and they had no clue beforehand.

 

I just thought it was funny that you said, The Old Testament was a lousy source for prophecy about Jesus Did nobody else understand why I thought that was funny?

 

I get what your saying, Prophecy about Jesus, blah blah, prove this prove that; Jesus was bogus, blah blah. I have heard this a million times. He didn't fit the Jewish Messiah, or He didn't fit this or that prophecy?

 

I have heard, debated, and studied this before. But, does that mean that I am going to start coping and pasting sources upon sources to back whatever claim I wish to claim. No. Research yourself.

 

My answer will be debunked, as Apologetic most likely; but really, who's counting, or who really cares for that matter. Should I heighten my answers structure to impress you or anyone else? Why?

 

I think Jesus fit as the Jewish Messiah. Various reasons that I am not willing to go through 20 pages of hashing out, because like you said;

 

I could list hundreds of failed prophecies, but you would not see that they have any bearing on whatever scriptures you might deem to be prophetic.

 

That works both ways you know

[florduh]

That works both ways you know

 

We have already worked it both ways. We used to make the large leaps of faith and made things fit simply because they HAD to. We were sincere believers. We have already done what you're doing now - that's what the visiting apologists don't grasp about many of the people on this site. We have former preachers, teachers, Biblical scholars and experts in the ancient languages. We know what we're doing here (for the most part - sometimes I'm kinda dumb).

 

It's the same old bottom line - faith ALWAYS trumps reason and fact, period. That's why I no longer seriously debate apologetics. I argued it from the other side and know that logical arguments always meet a dead end. Nothing could penetrate my apologetic argument and I'm sure that yours is also unassailable.

 

If you feel you must be a Christian for your own peace of mind, please stop looking into contradictory materials because eventually you will see the truth, and I don't think you would be happy without your faith.

[bdp]

I think Jesus fit as the Jewish Messiah.

 

What do you know about Judaism?

[chefranden]

1. I will say that I think the single most effective thing that caused me to still believe was the history of Christianity. Many here will say that this and that is false, forged, made up, edited by the church, a big conspiracy to gain power, etc. But, the fact is that if the experts of Christianity within Roman history are not true, forged, made up; then society in general has lost a piece of Roman history. One example is in The Annals. Many have said that the reference to Christians in the Annals was forged, but studies from secular historians show that it isn't. That was the authors writing, and the correction was from the author; not by a clergy as speculated from different dates.

 

2. The power of a rumor is tremendous.

 

1. What do you mean by Christian history? I don't think that many would argue that there were and are people who call themselves Christians. Christians were mentioned here and there in Roman writings of the time, and most of the mentions weren't forged. But what does that prove?

 

What do even fewer mentions of a Christ or Christus prove. It is some small evidence that there may have been an actual person of Jesus. But so? From what I hear there have been sightings of Michel Jackson back from the dead already. Once the sightings reach 500 does Jacko turn into a god?

 

This sort of thing is a bit much to hang your hopes on. Even Paul said as much, warning that if Christ be not risen then your faith is in vain.

 

2. Do you mean the power of rumor to mislead?

 

While I'm impressed by all the work you've put into this, I don't see that you have come up with a real place to stand. You may as well go with Credo quia absurdum and take your leap of faith.

[Abiyoyo]

That works both ways you know

 

We have already worked it both ways. We used to make the large leaps of faith and made things fit simply because they HAD to. We were sincere believers. We have already done what you're doing now - that's what the visiting apologists don't grasp about many of the people on this site. We have former preachers, teachers, Biblical scholars and experts in the ancient languages. We know what we're doing here (for the most part - sometimes I'm kinda dumb).

 

Well, you are right. This is something where it can be applied both ways, and the tie breaker is what the other side wants to believe. If you want to believe in God, and that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, then you will go to all lengths to try to understand it, and piece it all together. Same for the other side; but, when the cards come down, the lengths do too. So, even if you spent 20 years searching and researching the prophecies of Christ, if you decide, after whichever factors, that you don't believe in God anymore; then it just becomes meaningless because you see the end result the same as your end result.

 

I on the other hand have straddled that fence as well; but I still choose to believe. And, as far as the 'apologetics' coming here visiting the site; if you are referring to me, then I would have to say that you would be the one visiting, not me.

 

 

 

If you feel you must be a Christian for your own peace of mind, please stop looking into contradictory materials because eventually you will see the truth, and I don't think you would be happy without your faith.

 

This is a freewill site Florduh Yes, I am faithful, and I have seen the truth.

[Abiyoyo]

I think Jesus fit as the Jewish Messiah.

 

What do you know about Judaism?

 

I know about as much as someone should know about Judaism. But, that isn't the point. Even if I wasn't familiar with Jewish prophecy, then I would still believe in Jesus as the Son of God, the One that was to come and bring hope, be a Light to mankind.