Question For The Christians

[rayskidude]

'rayskidude' timestamp='1289361505' post='620800']

God came in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, never sinned, and yet died to pay the just debt of own sin before a Holy God. He took our guilt and punishment; we receive His righteousness - that we may be in God's presence forever. The life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Messiah is the greatest demonstration of love ever displayed.

 

God cannot die at any time, which reduces your first talking point to wishful thinking.

 

The Bible states that Jesus the Messiah is both fully God and fully man, two natures in One Person. Death is 'separation' - specifically human death is the separation of the immaterial soul from the material body. Ergo, when Jesus 'gave up His spirit' on the cross, when He said to God the Father, "Into Your hands I commend My Spirit" that constituted His real death, which had been preceded by Hs absorption of God's righteous wrath against Man's voluminous sin.

 

A human sacrifice is not a legal sin sacrifice according to God's law.

 

Jesus voluntarily gave up His life to save the lives of many. When a person chooses to die in the place of others who are in danger - that death is considered a sacrifice, because the person 'sacrificed' his life to spare the lives of others. But also, his death is recognized as the ultimate exercise of love - sacrificing and giving his life up so that others may live.

 

So when our military go into battle to defend our lives, our way of life, our principles for living - they do so voluntarily, taking on that responsibility, because of their love for their families, their people, their nation, freedom, our democratic republic, to combat tyranny & despotism, etc.

 

Do we sit around and condemn them for conducting some 'unlawful' sacrifice? Or do we laud them for their selfless service to us?

 

Isn't human sacrifice against USA law? Why do we allow the best & brightest of our citizens to die for us, sacrificing themselves?

[rayskidude]

'rayskidude' timestamp='1289222194' post='620361']

 

Prove me wrong.

 

You took this challenge out of context.

 

I won't stoop so low as to ask you if you've got the 'nads to respond. Nor will I insult your intelligence by suggesting that you're clueless about these matters. No. You'll reply to the above questions when you're ready. If 'ready' is never, then so be it.

BAA.

\

 

I have provide more than one response, but until you put your Martian canyon theory on the table - how can we possibly dialogue? Since you will not, I am trying to determine your reticence to engage in this dialogue.

[rayskidude]

Ray, you studiously avoided actually responding to anything I said. Spouting scriptures and platitudes does not address any of my points. Your original contention was that a wayward child deserves punishment. Mine was that to any loving parent, a child's waywardness doesn't constitute a grievance that must be answered, much less answered with eternal torment. If you have a child, I hope that you would not give her until the age of majority to submit to your will, on penalty of being locked in your basement and tortured with bamboo shoots for the remainder of her life. Because if you did, even human justice would impose a (much more humane) penalty on you for this injustice. You could go on and on about what an act of love it was to conceive her, feed her, provide for her needs, and so forth, but the law would still condemn you for the sick fuck that you would be.

 

Bob - what we cannot do is envision God as a bigger version of us. This is what Greek mythology presents - gods & goddesses that are petty, selfish, arrogant, etc - such that many philosophers rejected those gods. However, the Triune God is infinite in His Person and attributes. Ergo - His holiness, righteousness, and justice are infinite in nature. As we assess our lives, we come from the standpoint of our finiteness, and more importantly - our nature as sinners. This makes it difficult for us to understand and appreciate God's wrath against sin - our sin and the sin of others.

 

Though we condemn others for their sins, we can identify somewhat with the motives they've had to get where they are in life. But even for grievous remorseless and continued sin (or crime) - we cannot and should not tolerate that, and so we punish that individual - and in some cases will execute them by capital punishment.

 

Now - being created in God's image & likeness, we do have a sense of justice, morality, crime & punishment, encouraging the good, working together for community welfare, etc. However, we cannot understand God's perfect holiness, righteousness, & justice. So when we see what we consider to be over-reactions to sin, we question God's character. But in such a situation, why shouldn't we question our severely limited & flawed perspective? We're woefully finite and polluted by a sin nature - our nature renders us very 'unqualified' to judge God's character and actions.

 

So what we need to do - is take what we understand about right/wrong, severity of sin/crime, appropriate justice/punishment, etc and realize that God is infinite and perfect in these things - and acknowledge that we will have some difficulty in understanding these issues.

 

Do we not trust our leaders to make decisions which affect us all in matters which they have information that we do not have? I know we often criticize various leaders, coaches, etc and argue about what they're doing and why, after all, they're finite and biased - but this would not apply to God.

 

So though we struggle with some things - we can understand the principles involved, and we should humbly admit there is much we don't understand.

 

But, yes - we all grieve over erring children that sometimes lack gratefulness, esp when we see them heading toward their own destruction - and we do all we can to prevent that eventuality. But, ultimately they are all free moral agents.

 

God also has given His own Son - to save us from sin's punishment, to deliver us from sinful pursuits, to be an example of how we should live in love. And yet, many choose to reject, ignore, remain indifferent to God's love. Pursuing a path to destruction, they will accomplish their own will. Despite God's call upon them to repent and live.

[Antlerman]

Ray, you studiously avoided actually responding to anything I said. Spouting scriptures and platitudes does not address any of my points. Your original contention was that a wayward child deserves punishment. Mine was that to any loving parent, a child's waywardness doesn't constitute a grievance that must be answered, much less answered with eternal torment. If you have a child, I hope that you would not give her until the age of majority to submit to your will, on penalty of being locked in your basement and tortured with bamboo shoots for the remainder of her life. Because if you did, even human justice would impose a (much more humane) penalty on you for this injustice. You could go on and on about what an act of love it was to conceive her, feed her, provide for her needs, and so forth, but the law would still condemn you for the sick fuck that you would be.

 

Bob - what we cannot do is envision God as a bigger version of us.

Actually, what we cannot do is envision God as smaller than us. That's the real problem here Ray. That's why we reject a notion of God that has it being something we are repulsed by in our moral hearts, rather than being drawn toward as higher truth. Ergo, we have a higher evolved morality that that notion of God from the past which you struggle to fit into your higher sensibilities.

 

All the rest of what you say in response to Bob is a clear example of the degree of rationalizing away this fact, making up excuses for it. The true key out of this dilemma for you is to recognize you are beholden to an external belief, suppressing your internal truth. Ergo, you are placing your beliefs above God. You should take a lesson from End3, who seems more concerned with that truth, than his ideas from Sunday School classes. I applaud that in every human. Would that you could do this as well, rather than all these irrational gymnastics and denials you must do in order to preserve your external beliefs.

[Ouroboros]

Bob - what we cannot do is envision God as a bigger version of us. This is what Greek mythology presents - gods & goddesses that are petty, selfish, arrogant, etc - such that many philosophers rejected those gods. However, the Triune God is infinite in His Person and attributes. Ergo - His holiness, righteousness, and justice are infinite in nature.

Infinite justice doesnt' justify infinite immorality.

 

Btw, you have created a "bigger version" of yourself because you have created a God who is a bigger asshole than you. So congrats to epic fail!

 

Now - being created in God's image & likeness, we do have a sense of justice, morality, crime & punishment, encouraging the good, working together for community welfare, etc.

So we are made to miniature versions of God. But we have a sinful nature and a bad side.

 

Does this mean that one of those faults we have is that we consider God's infinite justice through eternal torture to be evil? The pure, true, and infinite love is the one where God tortures people for sin?

 

It's all so friggin' absurd!

[centauri]

'rayskidude' timestamp='1289361505' post='620800']

God came in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, never sinned, and yet died to pay the just debt of own sin before a Holy God. He took our guilt and punishment; we receive His righteousness - that we may be in God's presence forever. The life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Messiah is the greatest demonstration of love ever displayed.

 

God cannot die at any time, which reduces your first talking point to wishful thinking.

 

The Bible states that Jesus the Messiah is both fully God and fully man, two natures in One Person.

The Bible states that God is not a man and that Jesus failed to qualify as a king messiah.

Jesus also stated that he has a God.

 

Death is 'separation' - specifically human death is the separation of the immaterial soul from the material body. Ergo, when Jesus 'gave up His spirit' on the cross, when He said to God the Father, "Into Your hands I commend My Spirit" that constituted His real death, which had been preceded by Hs absorption of God's righteous wrath against Man's voluminous sin.

The death of a material body doesn’t save anyone, nor does the separation of a soul from its body.

No part of God can die at any time and a human sacrifice doesn’t save anyone.

 

 

centauri:

A human sacrifice is not a legal sin sacrifice according to God's law.

 

Jesus voluntarily gave up His life to save the lives of many. When a person chooses to die in the place of others who are in danger - that death is considered a sacrifice, because the person 'sacrificed' his life to spare the lives of others. But also, his death is recognized as the ultimate exercise of love - sacrificing and giving his life up so that others may live.

This is blatant special pleading and irrelevant.

God’s law is the issue, and that law doesn’t allow humans to be used as sin sacrifices.

 

Do we sit around and condemn them for conducting some 'unlawful' sacrifice? Or do we laud them for their selfless service to us?

 

Isn't human sacrifice against USA law? Why do we allow the best & brightest of our citizens to die for us, sacrificing themselves?

This is more irrelevancy on your part.

You discard God’s law when it doesn’t conform to your subjective desires.

You mock God's rules and make special exemptions for things that please your senses.

USA law is not the HOLY LAW of God, which is quite specific on what is and isn’t allowed.

The issue is if God’s law allows humans to be used as sin sacrifices.

The issue is if Jesus could fulfill a law by breaking it.

The issue is if God was serious when he said not to add or subtract from his holy law.

You cannot claim that Jesus fulfilled the law or was a valid sacrifice while ignoring the very HOLY LAW that the Bible God set down as binding and eternal.

[DesertBob]

However, the Triune God is infinite in His Person and attributes. Ergo - His holiness, righteousness, and justice are infinite in nature. As we assess our lives, we come from the standpoint of our finiteness, and more importantly - our nature as sinners. This makes it difficult for us to understand and appreciate God's wrath against sin - our sin and the sin of others.

Yes, I know, "his ways are past finding out". If that is true, then there are really only two possible responses: yours, which is basically to stop thinking about it and unquestioningly accept whatever your adopted dogma dictates is true, whether or not it resonates with your own morality and ethics; or to say, wait a minute, maybe all this is made-up bullshit.

 

The fundamental reason I am no longer a Christian is because I could no longer handle the grinding cognitive dissonance of reconciling the dogma with common sense and with my own experience of actual reality. I am much happier responding to life as it presents itself to me, even though there are aspects of life that I don't care for -- indeed, even though there are aspects of it I don't understand or can't explain, at least I am not making apologies to myself or anyone else for anything morally reprehensible.

 

I'm curious how you regard me -- seeing as I accepted Jesus as my personal saviour at age 5, went to a Bible institute, and was a committed Christian for two decades before I began to entertain any doubts at all and probably four decades before I actually deconverted. I don't really fit into your neat calculus of someone who stubbornly refuses to submit to god. I submitted to and embraced your god for quite possibly longer than you have, for all I know. How do you explain that? Do you find it necessary to deny that I was ever really a Christian? Are you able to admit the possibility that someone would genuinely embrace the faith and yet the search for truth would ultimately lead them out of it? Not just as a backslider who at some level really wants to come back home, but actually led to a deep conviction that the truth, such as it is, lies elsewhere?

 

I'm guessing that you can't handle that -- it actually puts you on "tilt". And yet -- here I am.

[Guest end3]

I realize you're processing this and this is just a first stab at it, but I'll correct a few things in this. I don't believe any of it is any sort of predestined journey. We could just as well collapse, and may in fact very well do just that in this process of evolution. It is not centered around humans doing this, we are just what emerged that is in fact accessing that on a higher level. There is no plan that has "us" in mind, only that we are magnificently aware! That is wondrous to become that.

 

It is also incredibly painful. It was the philosopher Plotinus who said so well, "Mankind is poised midway between the gods and the beasts." It is that anxiety, that sense of self, of our mortality, in the face of conscious thought and apprehension that propels us in all our projects to resolve our nature; some looking up, others look back. We are a marvelous manifestation of this Nature, but all is. That we can look upon it, understand it, recognize it, move towards it, become it, is an incredible, and terrifying thing. "We are poised midway between the gods and the beasts."

 

One of the things that comes to mind when you say "resolve that nature" within our awareness seems very much related to the dualistic nature of the Source Nature (as much as we are able to discern), and our own experience paralleling the Source...i.e. life and death. There also seems there are parallels involving our struggle to grow to a point of "producing fruit", and also resolving or ammending our own nature during the growth phase (suffering), that we might possibly reach a fulfillment, or maybe not, of our potential. In other words, our consciousness allows for more that accepting the "what is" of the Source Nature and living within that as recognition and fullfillment, but to see how this Nature and our nature can then, within the Nature's rules or unfolding, and in conjuction with our accepting those rules, that these then allow for many other things as a function of unity to that Source Nature. I don't see that this is out of bounds within the scope of our own awareness.

 

In other words, why is it adaquate to just accept "what is" in acknowledgement and peace, regardless of the outcome for others, when our awareness allows for manipulation of our own nature to define an improved awareness for others? I don't see that the duality of the Source Nature, when we join in unity with that, allows for only a singular nature? My experience doesn't support that in that I can choose exclusion just the same as I can choose inclusion......and remember, this is within my awareness through the Source Nature...or Ground Being if you wish. How do you reconcile this because you were saying that the higher self is no more than acceptance of What Is and living within that BUT discerning inclusion....and I don't think that is consistant.

 

No, actually no, I would not say that. It's all part of our unfolding consciousness. We have used these things in ways that helps create the necessary structures in order for us to ponder further, to explore deeper into these realms. But it is important to recognize the nature of them, that they are not the Answer, but the answer for this moment in time, at that stage, and even more for that group at that moment of time, at that stage. They all, no matter what they are contain supporting truth, as well as the negatives. You cannot have one without the other.

 

It is an error to imagine that a thing must be either all true, or is all false.

 

I think the bolded kind of goes back to what I was just trying to express. Here is the crux for me today, in my "unfolding"...you have to ask yourself, if there is life and death, and positives and negative within our awareness, and also we are aware that the positives are acutely better than the negatives, that the higher self is not just recognition and Unity with the Ground Being, but also that we understand that we recognize that the Ground Being has a dual nature within it's own nature. Why is the higher self not striving towards the positives, when our own experience tells us that the positives are far greater than the negatives.

 

I can't help here K, think about the nature of the Christian God....that it doesn't leave these points out of the description, you?

 

Actually, as I've been saying, the more our awareness is grown, less divisions we see, the more integration we see. The more connected we become. Keep that direction going all the way up to the point of Everything. And if there is no division, that that is ONE. Where is there a dual anything in that?

 

I agree that the sum total awareness regards the positives and negatives as inclusion of awareness...that I can accept. But again, are we greedy to want the positives more than the negatives? And I will highlight this for you, as it is part of my original point...."Must we 'suffer' the negatives in order to bring the positives for someone else"? So they seemingly DO fit together, but why is Jesus or any of us focused on the postives of the Ground Being moreso if it is not the higher self?

 

I respect how you approach your beliefs. Your heart is married to something far greater than your ideas, your beliefs, and theologies. A huge deal to be said here.

 

[Phanta]

Isn't human sacrifice against USA law? Why do we allow the best & brightest of our citizens to die for us, sacrificing themselves?

 

Greed. Defense.

 

Phanta

[DesertBob]

Why is the higher self not striving towards the positives, when our own experience tells us that the positives are far greater than the negatives.

Although specific individuals do seem incapable of anything but behaviors that are harmful to themselves and others, and we all have areas of our lives where we seem prone to self defeating or self destructive habits, I submit to you that overall, people do "strive towards the positive". If they did not, wide swaths of the planet would not be living in relative peace, security and prosperity. There would be no progress on any front, no empathy or compassion lived out, etc.

 

The church has this pessimistic view that man, left to himself, is vile and sinful and wicked and looking for ways to lie, cheat and steal; that's why he needs "saving". The media finds news of mayhem and vice easier to report and skews our perceptions. But really, it's amazing that as much goes right as does.

 

Last night I went to the symphony, and videotaped the solo vocal performance of a young lady as a favor to her mother. This 16 year old sang in front of thousands of people, overcame her fears, moved the audience nearly to tears, and today her extended family is passing the video around on the Internet, rejoicing with mother and daughter in this accomplishment. Is this not an expression of "striving toward the positive", whether or not it comes from some higher Self? I think that most people mean well, and try to do well; and many of them actually manage to pull it off, at least often enough to make their lives rationalizeable, if not downright compelling.

 

It has taken me some time to get away from being stuck in the mentality that I am a sinner, struggling to occasionally overcome my sin nature, in a world beset by sin. I am simply a human being, making my way the best I can, sometimes succeeding brilliantly and sometimes taking a prat-fall, that's all. The world is not burdened by sin so much as ignorance, unawareness and immaturity. Nothing more complicated than that. I try to encourage myself and those around me to do their best. Is this not sufficient? I'm not naive, I know that there are real dangers and heartaches abroad in the world, but I'm no longer prepared to play the victim of sinful proclivities -- mine or others.

[Guest end3]

I think that most people mean well, and try to do well; and many of them actually manage to pull it off, at least often enough to make their lives rationalizeable, if not downright compelling.

 

I agree that when it happens on the level that you speak, that that is where we truely stand up and rejoice at the beauty....much like the little girl I mentioned on America's Got Talent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiM9QVdJyVQ

. I don't hold that definition as the the only example. My counterpoint to your statement would be that there was likely an act of vandalism in the symphony parking lot or at least an organized effort to avoid such.

[DesertBob]

My counterpoint to your statement would be that there was likely an act of vandalism in the symphony parking lot or at least an organized effort to avoid such.

It really comes down to whether we want to be basically pessimistic or basically optimistic about human nature. The latter stance is pretty much anathema to standard Christian doctrine as it flies in the face of the doctrine of the "total depravity of man". At some point I realized that this extreme view was, at the least, in need of some balance.

 

In all frankness, my personality is such that I have generally tended to be pessimistic. But at some point I realized I was working really hard to position myself as above and beyond it all, and also to portray myself as a victim ("I'm surrounded by idiots!!"). I had much ego invested in being "right". That's just me, of course. For me it was just a healthy bit of progress to see myself as part of, rather than apart from, my fellow humans. Once that happened I could see their foibles in a more balanced and perhaps ironic light -- certainly a more compassionate light.

 

I think it's helpful to see even that guy out in the parking lot performing vandalism as something other than a willful idiot. At a certain level, that's what he is, and he may actually need some kind of wake up call in the form of justice meted out. At another level, though, he's you and me -- a lost, confused, acting-out version thereof. We could have been even worse, saddled with his particular baggage, for all we know. He could end up ultimately outshining us, for all we know. We can never imagine ourselves better. We can't afford the smugness.

 

What I'm trying to do these days is to see what's laudable and praiseworthy in more mundane things. I don't need someone to happen to be cute and sing a song that I find moving in order for me to see the goodness in them. They can even be a little bit annoying. There's that Indian dude at the Drunken Donuts drive-thru who greets me every morning with a rapid-fire "HowAreYouMyFriendWhatCanIDoForYouToday?" I know his boss probably puts him up to it but the fact that he's game enough to comply and his boss is, while arguably misguided, trying to provide his customers with some respect and caring, is a lovely thing to me. At one time, my reaction would have been more along the lines of, "you are NOT my friend and a fake sales patter won't convince me that you're losing any sleep tonight over how I, your friend, am getting along and how you can serve me even better tomorrow." I just don't have room for that many pet peeves anymore. I prefer to like the silly little twit and admire him for putting himself out there, day after day, embracing hundreds of total strangers as "my friend" for no more incentive than keeping his minimum wage job. There is something beautiful about that, if you choose to see it ... and if you extend that frame of mind to enough things you start to see your fellow man as a bit less ignoble.

[agnosticator]

Now - being created in God's image & likeness, we do have a sense of justice, morality, crime & punishment, encouraging the good, working together for community welfare, etc. However, we cannot understand God's perfect holiness, righteousness, & justice. So when we see what we consider to be over-reactions to sin, we question God's character. But in such a situation, why shouldn't we question our severely limited & flawed perspective? We're woefully finite and polluted by a sin nature - our nature renders us very 'unqualified' to judge God's character and actions.

 

Since the biblegod decided to "cast his pearls before [us] swines", he should follow his own advice and expect shit to be flung back at him. Instead, he "over-reacts" in his assholiness with infinite torture. What happened to the Golden Rule? Where is the compassion? Saving a pitiful few says alot about the "good news". It's only "good" for compliant and obedient yes men.

 

Legion mentioned in another thread, that instead of focusing on morality, it's better to cultivate the virtues. IOW, morals are really about empathy, compassion, walking in others' shoes, etc...becoming a virtuous person; someone to emulate. The biblegod is not virtuous, but is childish and hates his playthings because they don't do as his pettiness desires. Do you really want to be like the biblegod?

[agnosticator]

Infinite justice doesnt' justify infinite immorality.

 

Btw, you have created a "bigger version" of yourself because you have created a God who is a bigger asshole than you.

 

[Antlerman]

One of the things that comes to mind when you say "resolve that nature" within our awareness seems very much related to the dualistic nature of the Source Nature (as much as we are able to discern), and our own experience paralleling the Source...i.e. life and death.

None of this makes sense to me. "Paralleling the Source"? What does that mean?

 

Again, I don't see how the Source of all would be dualistic. Imagine everything is one without division. Where is two in "one"?

 

There also seems there are parallels involving our struggle to grow to a point of "producing fruit", and also resolving or ammending our own nature during the growth phase (suffering), that we might possibly reach a fulfillment, or maybe not, of our potential. In other words, our consciousness allows for more that accepting the "what is" of the Source Nature and living within that as recognition and fullfillment, but to see how this Nature and our nature can then, within the Nature's rules or unfolding, and in conjuction with our accepting those rules, that these then allow for many other things as a function of unity to that Source Nature. I don't see that this is out of bounds within the scope of our own awareness.

(scratches head). Huh?

 

In other words, why is it adaquate to just accept "what is" in acknowledgement and peace, regardless of the outcome for others, when our awareness allows for manipulation of our own nature to define an improved awareness for others? I don't see that the duality of the Source Nature, when we join in unity with that, allows for only a singular nature?

Duality of Source Nature? Huh? I've never jammed the two words together like that. Not sure what you mean. And "joined in unity with that", is very not what I've ever said. If you are talking about the Source, then we were fused with that, like an infant with its mother. There is no sense of self anywhere in that. Undifferentiated. That is not "Unity with", as that require two becoming one. There was not two to begin with. Fused, not united.

 

How do you reconcile this because you were saying that the higher self is no more than acceptance of What Is and living within that BUT discerning inclusion....and I don't think that is consistant.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never said anything like the higher self is no more than acceptance of what is.

 

No, actually no, I would not say that. It's all part of our unfolding consciousness. We have used these things in ways that helps create the necessary structures in order for us to ponder further, to explore deeper into these realms. But it is important to recognize the nature of them, that they are not the Answer, but the answer for this moment in time, at that stage, and even more for that group at that moment of time, at that stage. They all, no matter what they are contain supporting truth, as well as the negatives. You cannot have one without the other.

 

It is an error to imagine that a thing must be either all true, or is all false.

 

I think the bolded kind of goes back to what I was just trying to express. Here is the crux for me today, in my "unfolding"...you have to ask yourself, if there is life and death, and positives and negative within our awareness, and also we are aware that the positives are acutely better than the negatives, that the higher self is not just recognition and Unity with the Ground Being, but also that we understand that we recognize that the Ground Being has a dual nature within it's own nature. Why is the higher self not striving towards the positives, when our own experience tells us that the positives are far greater than the negatives.

 

I can't help here K, think about the nature of the Christian God....that it doesn't leave these points out of the description, you?

It sounds to me like you're trying to take all these ways of talking about it and making it fit a way of looking at you that you have. I have no problem in saying that what the Christian mystic (not your average Orthodoxy fair, or course) says, that seeing a dualistic, theistic face, has value on level. I just think at any point we make it that face, that theistic notion and as the end understanding, it reduces it. Have you ever wondered why the mystic traditions of the world all say the same thing? A theistic view is understandable (for a lot of reasons), but the vast confusion is when the mindset of say, your Orthodox believer, such as Ray, is that that idea is it! It's not a way to process and embrace what is beyond it, but it itself! "My god is right! Yours is wrong!" Phooey. Ignorance. Child mind.

 

Understand theism can be a means to an end, but it is not the end itself. It's a face; a mask. What's beyond that Mask? What's beyond "God"? Keep going.... Infinite, into Infinite, into Infinite.

 

 

I realize this may take some processing to get what I'm saying, so forgive me if it isn't clear. It's not easy to just lay it all out in these sorts of posts. We'll keep trying.

[LNC]

The “facts” for “Jesus of Nazareth” come exclusively from cult writers who were writing for the purpose of establishing their character as a bona-fide messiah.

The existence of mass stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion was not a debatable fact either.

The vast majority of weapons scholars agreed on these "facts" and Colin Powell sold these facts in front of the world.

 

 

The use of the term "cult writers" is a pejorative that doesn't help you make your case, which is a red herring anyway. Even if they were writing to establish his bonafides as Messiah, that doesn't mean that he was not, in fact Messiah anymore than a historian writing about Abraham Lincoln being a great president would negate the fact that he was a great president.

 

Your WMD example is a non-sequitur to this discussion.

 

You have a high degree of reliability that there were stories about a resurrection.

Your reliability comes from cult writers with an obvious agenda to sell “Jesus” as a bona-fide messiah.

The Gospels themselves have glaring inconsistencies regarding events surrounding the god-man.

This is not established history except in the minds of those that want it to be.

 

No, we have a high degree of reliability about the facts of Jesus' life. I mean, if your way of thinking follows, then we have to say the same about all of history, especially, ancient history; but really, all of history. Again, you throw out a pejorative thinking it will make your case stronger, but it does not, it only colors your analysis as being biased. If you would like to discuss what you call "glaring inconsistencies," I would be glad to discuss them. These cases have been addressed repeatedly, so one more time won't be any more difficult. However, your final statement shows that you are not as familiar with the field of study that you purport to be. You are in the extreme minority position on this one, but, if you would like to try to make your case, you are welcome to try.

 

LNC

[LNC]

First of all ... how well do you know him? ... That's what I thought. Secondly, why are you always so concerned with what everyone else thinks? You seem to believe that we can be intimidated by name dropping and telling us what others think or believe. Just because someone else believes something, doesn't make it right. Surely your momma told you this simple stuff. Are you incapable of thinking for yourself? Perhaps this explains how you managed to get yourself in this predicament to begin with. The whole world may start eating worms tomorrow. I will not. Get a grip man! Get a grip!

 

Don't forget that Flew can't even make up his mind what HE believes ... why would any of the rest of us care to try keeping up with him? Jeepers guy! Pick your super hero's more carefully! Give Spider Man a closer look.

 

I took a class with Dr. Habermas two summers ago and spoke with him again this past summer. I have also read his work, heard him debate skeptics, etc. How well do you know him? I am just as concerned as you are about what others think, which is why you asked me a question about what I think. I don't know that I brought his name up, it was Ouroboros who did, if my research serves correctly. Is he the name-dropper then? However, you are right, just because someone believes something it doesn't make it right, that is why we must look at the person's arguments and research to determine if they are sound. So far, no one has refuted the arguments of Habermas, just used ad hominem and assertions. Now, do you have an argument or are you simply resigned to the same tactic?

 

You are also wrong about Flew, he was quite sure about what he believed when he recently died, read the book that he wrote with Roy Varghese, it is all there. He also gave interviews to verify that was was in that book was carefully studied and approved by him before publishing. However, are you implying that when someone changes his or her mind, that we cannot trust him? It seems that the name of this site should then be changed as it implies that most, if not all here changed their minds at one time...there are even ex-timonials to that effect.

 

LNC

[LNC]

N.T. Wright, J.D. Crossan, Robert Price, Richard Bauckham just to name a few.

Why are the opinions of all these people so important to you?

 

Opinions? Do you say the same about researchers in other fields? Do you ask why we should trust the opinion of Richard Dawkins? Daniel Dennett? Stephen Jay Gould? You confuse research with opinions

 

LNC

[LNC]

Again LNC, you show your lack of substance by the continuous use of this type of language to start practically every response.

 

 

Sometimes one must call it as it is...

 

 

You are wrong. It is debatable. It is more than debatable. On second thought, seeing that there is no reliable source document and / or unbiased corroborating testimony whereby your extraordinary claims may be proven, perhaps you are correct - there is no debate.

 

 

First, what is extraordinary about a person radically changing his/her beliefs. It seems to be the basis of this site. Should I doubt that the people giving ex-timonies really changed because that would, after all, be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Second, can you tell me your evidence as to why we should not trust the NT accounts of these changes, as well as the extra-biblical accounts of Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, and others. The only ones debating are those who won't be convinced, no matter how strong the evidence.

 

Are we supposed to take your word for that? Please provide some extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claim.

 

 

Witnesses attest seeing him risen from the dead as he said he would. This is multiply attested and accepted by the vast majority of NT scholars.

 

Wasn't it sweet of the heavenly Father to create his children with an inclination to do that which would condemn them to hell for all eternity? Your God is not deserving of worship. He is a sadistic abuser of children and guilty, beyond any doubt, of child endangerment - a Class A felony in Wyoming and most other states. What he does deserve is banishment from the universe. I suspect someday he will reap that which he has sowed. Human beings can't possibly remain in this state of ignorance for too much longer.

 

God didn't create man with an inclination to sin, that was completely man's doing. Because man has rebelled from God, God will not force those who remain in rebellion to spend eternity in his presence. You have, unfortunately, misrepresented God. Clearly your view is a concoction of your own mind and not drawn from Scriptures where God is described as patient, not wanting any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. God, who sent his own son to die on a cross at the hands of angry, spiteful, self-centered people, who, rather than bow the knee to him, would have rather put him to an excruciating (from the word for cross) death. Man is the one who abuses children, will you condemn man just the same?

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

I don't know that I brought his name up, it was Ouroboros who did, if my research serves correctly.

Nah. It was bdp, but that's okay.

[Guest Valk0010]

How many NT scholars are christian, or have been at least christian in one time of there lives. Guess what all of them, and a vast majority at least that I am aware of, are still believers. I dunno something doesn't sit well with me on that.

 

You continually mention, the vast majority of NT scholars LNC. Again, doesn't matter how many people believe a certain thing, its is it right. A lot of people can still be wrong, a minority opinion can be accurate while a majority can be wrong.

 

Actually LNC, I would like you to answer the same question I put to ray. If you believe there is multiple attestation to the resurrection appearances(really this in the context of my question is kind of irrelevant but I put in here anyway), what stops you from believing in Marian Apparitions or alien abductions or say any appearances of any other religion, or appearances of the dead to loved ones. Remember use an explanation without theology or dogma, I would really like to know.

 

Seems like to me, to use the argument of multiple attestation you would have to carry more then your protestant boatload would allow.

[Ouroboros]

...would have rather put him to an excruciating (from the word for cross) death....

There are worse ways to die. And pretty much anyone else who dies, will stay dead, for eternity. Jesus got the easy way out.

[Guest Valk0010]

A sadist would make a universe knowing we would fail, and then having to put his son up as as redemption. Suffering happy much...

[Xerces]

N.T. Wright, J.D. Crossan, Robert Price, Richard Bauckham just to name a few.

Why are the opinions of all these people so important to you?

 

Opinions? Do you say the same about researchers in other fields? Do you ask why we should trust the opinion of Richard Dawkins? Daniel Dennett? Stephen Jay Gould? You confuse research with opinions

 

LNC

 

Because they use science and science builds computers, what does your god build? Oh wait, sorry it doesn't build shit I totally forgot for a second there.

[Xerces]

So far, no one has refuted the arguments of Habermas,

LNC

 

He gave no convincing evidence, you can't refute something that doesn't have anything to go on in the first place.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12kkOE5KOE8