2 Saviors?

[Guest Valk0010]

Prayers go unanswered and in general the whole concept is illogical and self contradictory.

 

 

And the concept being immoral as well.

[Margee]

It might be interesting to have those people who really would like Christianity to be true to sometime post THE biggest reason why they can't believe (their TOP reason).

Well, I do know some people here and I venture to say that the vast majority would like Christianity to be true. That's why we were Christians in the first place. Who wouldn't want a magical solution to life's problems, supernatural comfort and immortality?

 

I'll also say that the most prevalent reason (not the only reason) people left the faith is because under scrutiny, it falls apart. It all hinges on the Bible, and that book doesn't hold up under honest study. That's why some of the most outspoken atheists are former Biblical scholars, preachers and theological students. Prayers go unanswered and in general the whole concept is illogical and self contradictory.

 

Having been a devout Christian at one time myself I realize these answers will be found lacking, but there they are for your information.

 

Just wanted to say: ''ditto''!

 

 

[walker]

It's not simply a matter of removing evidence against god, though that would certainly be a requirement. But also, one must have credible evidence that there is a god. In fact, christianity has several levels of premises. Everything rests on the base premise that there is a god. Then there are other premises that deal with who god is and what he expects from us, etc. Proving the existence of god is the first step. In fact, while one may find plenty of evidence that the claims in the bible are false, there is no actual evidence that no gods exist. There is simply a lack of any reason to believe that there is one.

 

I first believed in god and an afterlife because I was taught as a child that there was a god. I even thought I could feel god calling me to be saved. I "accepted jesus" at a young age, even before getting baptized like good church of christ christians should. Just in case that wasn't good enough, I later on, as a baptist, prayed again for god to save me and to have a personal relationship with him and all that. I felt like I could feel his presence. I wanted to live with him eternally after I died. I also looked forward to spending eternity with family members, some of which, including my dad, had already died. Perhaps you could imagine the sense of loss I felt when I realized it could not be true.

 

If I saw truly compelling evidence that god existed, I would do my best to make an honest and objective assessment of that evidence. In the course of doing so, I might come to the conclusion that he does exist. I would then look at any credible information about what he might expect from me.

 

If you want, you can check out my deconversion testimony here.

I’m not sure it can ever be proven that no god exists - it‘s hard to prove a negative. I believe God, in a general sense, reveals Himself to everyone at some point. More specific revelation is found in scripture.

 

So - you need evidence to begin to consider God exists. Fair enough. But, it sounds like evidence wouldn’t necessarily convince you? Why?

 

I can imagine your loss, and I’m really sorry. I did read your deconversion. I’m sorry your experience with Christianity didn’t contain more of God’s Reality.

[walker]

It might be interesting to have those people who really would like Christianity to be true to sometime post THE biggest reason why they can't believe (their TOP reason).

Well, I do know some people here and I venture to say that the vast majority would like Christianity to be true. That's why we were Christians in the first place. Who wouldn't want a magical solution to life's problems, supernatural comfort and immortality?

 

Magical solution to life's problems - I can't really relate to that. In fact, in many ways I think it would be far easier NOT to believe in God or walk with Him. Walking with God is difficult - so often it'd be much easier to lie, or cheat a little, or go along with the popular, accepted thinking, etc. I think walking with God in this life is the harder path. Supernatural comfort? I don't imagine floating on clouds, singing songs, playing harps, etc. - but I do long for my real home. However, that can make life here in the shadowlands even harder to bear at times. Immortality? I believe we all have this.

 

I'll also say that the most prevalent reason (not the only reason) people left the faith is because under scrutiny, it falls apart. It all hinges on the Bible, and that book doesn't hold up under honest study. That's why some of the most outspoken atheists are former Biblical scholars, preachers and theological students. Prayers go unanswered and in general the whole concept is illogical and self contradictory.

 

We disagree here - no surprise! : ) And I assume you mean prayers that don't bring the results asked for are "unanswered", right? I'd like to know more of your thoughts on the Bible, in time. But - can you imagine anything that could cause you to believe?

 

Having been a devout Christian at one time myself I realize these answers will be found lacking, but there they are for your information.

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm learning a lot about how you all feel.

[Margee]

So....... my friend Walker - go to your scriptures and tell me - are there 2 saviors or what?

[florduh]

I assume you mean prayers that don't bring the results asked for are "unanswered", right?

Yeah, I know... God always answers prayer but sometimes the answer is "no." Well, that's just stupid, but many still like to say it when prayer fails. What I mean regarding prayer is that "answered" prayers run neck and neck with chance outcomes, and more than one experiment has shown that hospital patients had no better results when prayed for. I've seen no one "move the mountain" and of course the classic - no amputees healed.

 

Thoughts on the Bible? Critical looks at the writing, authors, compilation and inaccuracies are well covered in hundreds of pages on this site and many other places. Just look around because it would take me all night to cover just what I know about it.

 

What would cause me to believe? At this point it's too late. I've seen too many problems with the religion in question. All I can say is that I never would have left if I had found the Bible to be accurate and reliable. I might have thought there must be something to it all if every Christian heard the same message. I couldn't deny the veracity of Christianity if people actually were healed of serious illness and deformity through prayers in the name of Jesus. I would have stayed if it made sense, worked, and was supported by known physical and historical facts.

[oddbird1963]

Trust me, dude, if disbelief were a matter of the heart, I and many of my fellow ex-christians would still be christian.

Here here! Great point, MM! I was just going to say "Bullshit!" but you worded it so much better! I guess I'm too grumpy tonight to be eloquent.

 

These "unbelief is a matter of the heart" people don't see how judgmental they are being - whether they intend to be that way or not. Like they could know our hearts!

[MagickMonkey]

 

So - you need evidence to begin to consider God exists. Fair enough. But, it sounds like evidence wouldn’t necessarily convince you? Why?

 

 

The degree to which evidence would convince me depends on how convincing the evidence is. I very strongly doubt I will see any evidence that will convince me at this point. The credible evidence out there certainly seems to point to a godless universe. But who knows. Emotional warm n fuzzies will not work. If a god really does exist and wants to convince me of his existence, he/she/it will know what to do.

[MagickMonkey]

Trust me, dude, if disbelief were a matter of the heart, I and many of my fellow ex-christians would still be christian.

Here here! Great point, MM! I was just going to say "Bullshit!" but you worded it so much better! I guess I'm too grumpy tonight to be eloquent.

 

These "unbelief is a matter of the heart" people don't see how judgmental they are being - whether they intend to be that way or not. Like they could know our hearts!

 

Thanks!

[mwc]

So the thread basically doubles in size with lots of talk but no attempts at any proof...typical.

 

mwc

[Vixentrox]

It might be helpful to read the threads in the "Testimonies of Former Christians" forum. I know that for me, the evidence supporting evolution was a big deal. Also, there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is older than the bible says it is. Not that the bible gives an exact age, but it is certainly not compatible with an Earth that is a few billion years old. There are many other problems with the claims made by christianity. When I finally admitted that I no longer believed, I was not very happy about it. I simply had to admit to myself that no matter how much I wanted god to exist, I could not wish him into existence. I couldn't wish an afterlife into existence either. I was momentarily devastated. What my "heart" wanted to believe did not fit what my rational mind knew to be true.

I've read some testimonies a while ago, but you're right that it would be good to read the threads again. But for right now let me ask you this: IF somehow you came to see that science did not stand in the way of a belief in God, would you believe? I know I asked you for your top reason, but now I'm asking if it is your only reason. Image that this problem of science were removed ... would there be other reasons you couldn't believe?

 

Why did you want to believe in God and an afterlife? Was it maybe because you grew up believing? Why did you ever have the idea that God and an afterlife existed?

Even if I could believe in a diety, why would I pick that disgustingly evil, barbaric, misogynist bible god? Your diabolical imaginary friend is nothing but the blackest of darkness and one of the most vile deities ever to be invented.

[walker]

I agree with most of what you said outside of which I will address below.

Methods of examining ancient manuscripts, normally apply to reasonable claims like, ceaser crossed the rubicon, for example, not say the supposed miracles of him or apollonius of tyana, or Shabbat zevi or the magical stuff in the life of the twelve ceasers.

 

Point is, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence even in the ancient times. You would need more the average evidence for a miracle claim then you would for say, a guy visited a place and had lunch there.

 

The second part I will address more glibly, say a reliable person says they saw the virgin mary or aliens, but your reasoning you would have to believe them. They were reliable in other areas, so you have to believe them there. A consistent batshit crazy thing (though I wouldn't call the gospels consistent) is still a batshit crazy thing.

O-K, so what I hear you saying is that the methods of textual criticism can be applied to the Bible, and it can pass with flying colors, but because of what the Bible claims we cannot accept it as we would another manuscript. That’s a double standard, but I understand why you feel this must be. I also hear you saying that when we look at the reliability of those who claimed to witness the supernatural we again have to hold them to a different and higher standard than if they claimed to witness something ordinary. Again, a double standard - but again, I understand. I do understand you - but it is a double standard.

 

But imagine if 20 people you highly respect and know very well tell you they saw a supernatural being. None of your friends were religious. They were not with each other when they saw the being, yet their descriptions match up. And you notice something different about them now - they’re not perfect people but they’re different … one guy is suddenly helping the homeless - another guy is spending more time with an elderly relative. They also now have a similar view of life and believe in supernatural things. Do you dismiss their claim of seeing a supernatural being because it’s a crazy idea to you?

[walker]

Prayers go unanswered and in general the whole concept is illogical and self contradictory.

 

And the concept being immoral as well.

 

What is immoral?

 

And what is an agnostic atheist?

[Margee]

So....... my friend Walker - go to your scriptures and tell me - are there 2 saviors or what?

 

Walker,Walker! you still didn't answer my question? Go to your bible and tell me what this means. I started the post so you will see the questions there at the beginning.

[walker]

So....... my friend Walker - go to your scriptures and tell me - are there 2 saviors or what?

 

Margee, I thought you indicated that you knew the answer. Anyway, God - One Being - three persons - saves. Jesus is the "person" usually thought of as the "Savior". But - God saves.

[walker]

I assume you mean prayers that don't bring the results asked for are "unanswered", right?

Yeah, I know... God always answers prayer but sometimes the answer is "no." Well, that's just stupid, but many still like to say it when prayer fails. What I mean regarding prayer is that "answered" prayers run neck and neck with chance outcomes, and more than one experiment has shown that hospital patients had no better results when prayed for. I've seen no one "move the mountain" and of course the classic - no amputees healed.

 

Thoughts on the Bible? Critical looks at the writing, authors, compilation and inaccuracies are well covered in hundreds of pages on this site and many other places. Just look around because it would take me all night to cover just what I know about it.

 

What would cause me to believe? At this point it's too late. I've seen too many problems with the religion in question. All I can say is that I never would have left if I had found the Bible to be accurate and reliable. I might have thought there must be something to it all if every Christian heard the same message. I couldn't deny the veracity of Christianity if people actually were healed of serious illness and deformity through prayers in the name of Jesus. I would have stayed if it made sense, worked, and was supported by known physical and historical facts.

Sometimes God says “Wait“. Sometimes He says “I have something better.” And I think sometimes He doesn’t answer immediately - the answer comes in time.

 

Prayer “fails”? The purpose of prayer is not to tell the “Supreme Santa in the Sky” what you want and for Him to deliver if you’ve been a good little boy. The purpose of prayer is to talk to God - to spend time with Him, processing with Him to learn about yourself, listening to Him to know Him better, etc. It’s a relationship, and the relationship deepens when time is spent together and in conversation (just like any relationship between two people).

 

I don’t see problems with the Bible if it’s viewed as ancient Jewish literature (both testaments).

 

It’s too late for you to believe? I appreciate and respect your honesty, and your right to freely choose. That’s honorable.

[Margee]

So....... my friend Walker - go to your scriptures and tell me - are there 2 saviors or what?

 

Margee, I thought you indicated that you knew the answer. Anyway, God - One Being - three persons - saves. Jesus is the "person" usually thought of as the "Savior". But - God saves.

 

But in the other scripture, the old testament god proclaims that he is god and savior, and there is no other ? Did you read it? If god 'saves' in the OT, why'd he have to send us a savior in the NT?

[walker]

Trust me, dude, if disbelief were a matter of the heart, I and many of my fellow ex-christians would still be christian.

Here here! Great point, MM! I was just going to say "Bullshit!" but you worded it so much better! I guess I'm too grumpy tonight to be eloquent.

 

These "unbelief is a matter of the heart" people don't see how judgmental they are being - whether they intend to be that way or not. Like they could know our hearts!

I can’t know your or anyone else’s heart, odd bird. I can’t judge you either. But I do believe God reveals Himself to everyone at some point, and everyone will freely choose.

 

And I don’t know who wrote that believers think nonbelievers are immoral. I don’t. But I also don’t think everyone who claims to believe is moral. We’ll all a mix of good and bad actions.

[walker]

The degree to which evidence would convince me depends on how convincing the evidence is. I very strongly doubt I will see any evidence that will convince me at this point. The credible evidence out there certainly seems to point to a godless universe. But who knows. Emotional warm n fuzzies will not work. If a god really does exist and wants to convince me of his existence, he/she/it will know what to do.

 

What might be an example of convincing evidence? I agree about warm n fuzzies - emotions don’t make a good foundation. Yes, God will reveal Himself to you, but that doesn’t mean you will choose relationship with Him. It’s always a choice, even after His existence is known.

[walker]

So the thread basically doubles in size with lots of talk but no attempts at any proof...typical.

 

mwc

What type of proof would convince you? People can draw different conclusions from anything, don’t you think? A “burning bush” (not consumed) in the middle of Manhattan would cause scientists to develop a myriad of theories, but it’s probable that none of them would even consider a supernatural possibility. They’d study for years, convinced that someday they’ll understand how it was just a natural occurrence.

[walker]

Even if I could believe in a diety, why would I pick that disgustingly evil, barbaric, misogynist bible god? Your diabolical imaginary friend is nothing but the blackest of darkness and one of the most vile deities ever to be invented.

 

Actually, if a deity existed it would exist no matter what we thought of it, right? Why would a deity have to be good and loving to exist? Why couldn’t a deity be evil?

[Guest Valk0010]

 

O-K, so what I hear you saying is that the methods of textual criticism can be applied to the Bible, and it can pass with flying colors, but because of what the Bible claims we cannot accept it as we would another manuscript. That’s a double standard, but I understand why you feel this must be. I also hear you saying that when we look at the reliability of those who claimed to witness the supernatural we again have to hold them to a different and higher standard than if they claimed to witness something ordinary. Again, a double standard - but again, I understand. I do understand you - but it is a double standard.

So, the miraclous is the exact same and the nonmiraclous, its completely different therefore in need of different criteria. The nature of the subject matter requires different standards. I also notice you totally overlook what I said about other text's miracle claims, you would have to grant those too. Extraordinary batshit stuff required more evidence then say, someone stealing a car. Here is why, the stuff isn't normal, the stuff doesn't happen today. Also notice, then when dealing with say Josephus, which does report miraclous material, we don't deal with it. We only deal with from those times, stuff that can be proven and also stuff we know could, if circumstance happened again, occur today as well. I would be ready to say(though I don't think the gospels are incredibly accurate even though they have some "historical" truth to them)that even if they were that doesn't prove the supernatural. It is just another version of alien abductions, or marian apparitions or shamanism. The gospels in that instance would be unique, but it wouldn't be any different then say the stuff you see on snopes, about urban legends. Factual based accounts of stuff that didn't happen or at least we have no good reason to say there is evidence for.

 

You are going to have to prove why the miraculous( a suspension of the laws of nature) should be treated the same as something that happens within the laws of nature. Because in my view it shouldn't because of how different it is.

 

But imagine if 20 people you highly respect and know very well tell you they saw a supernatural being. None of your friends were religious. They were not with each other when they saw the being, yet their descriptions match up. And you notice something different about them now - they’re not perfect people but they’re different … one guy is suddenly helping the homeless - another guy is spending more time with an elderly relative. They also now have a similar view of life and believe in supernatural things. Do you dismiss their claim of seeing a supernatural being because it’s a crazy idea to you?

Just as a matter of form, if your trying to draw a connection to the apostles, it fails. The people who followed jesus would a cult movement, and also non of them where really skeptical against the ideas of the supernatural because of the era of which they lived. There descriptions as recorded in the gospels don't really match and its contradictions in more then just could be explain by differing perspectives of eyewitness accounts. Delusions change lives as well. The reason the apostles had a similar view, is because they were together as well a cult the entire time they followed jesus. Paul for example, being as educated by the standards of the day, understood christianity even as a jew well enough, to be able to adopt the lifestyle when he went nutty and converted.

 

Just because a belief changes lives doesn't make it true nor necessarily mean they saw something special.

 

Extrordinary claims require extraoridary evidence. If I were to believe people who say something crazy, just because they happen to be reliable and good people in any of way, means I would have to believe in way more then there is really evidence for.

 

I would think I am a decent human being, a couple weeks ago I saw a ghost, I could tell you how it looked like, it looked a bit like casper the friendly ghost(in shape, because it looked very pillow like, gooey shapped) and the dust kind of thing you see in western movies.

 

Just because I am a good person, not religious, normally reliable, you would have to believe me, because I told you I saw a ghost. See the problem with the criteria for truth that you use. And best yet, I don't believe in ghosts. I am sure if I lived in first century Palestine and had that happened to me, I would. So yes I would say your crazy.

[Guest Valk0010]

Prayers go unanswered and in general the whole concept is illogical and self contradictory.

 

And the concept being immoral as well.

 

What is immoral?

 

And what is an agnostic atheist?

Christianity is immoral,the whole concept of salvation, the entire religion is well for the most part immoral.

 

agnostic atheist means, I don't know for a fact there is no god, but I see no reason to believe in one.

[walker]

So....... my friend Walker - go to your scriptures and tell me - are there 2 saviors or what?

 

Margee, I thought you indicated that you knew the answer. Anyway, God - One Being - three persons - saves. Jesus is the "person" usually thought of as the "Savior". But - God saves.

 

But in the other scripture, the old testament god proclaims that he is god and savior, and there is no other ? Did you read it? If god 'saves' in the OT, why'd he have to send us a savior in the NT?

In Isaiah 45 the “LORD” is speaking. “LORD” indicates the tetragrammaton, “YHWH”, “I AM” (see Ex. 3:14). Jesus claimed to be “I AM”. Jesus is “LORD” in Isaiah 45.

 

There is One God - three persons. Therefore there is no other god - none of the idols, false gods, etc. worshiped by people were the One True God. Isaiah speaks often against false gods.

 

God saves - He saved the nation of Israel (on earth) many times. He also offers us salvation (restored relationship) from the consequence of sin (death) on an earthly level and more fully on a spiritual level. God is out of time, but we are in time. Jesus came when the time was right for earth. But first testament people were also able to have a restored relationship with God (“salvation”). Jesus’ saving earthly work was for people of all times.

[Margee]

So....... my friend Walker - go to your scriptures and tell me - are there 2 saviors or what?

 

Margee, I thought you indicated that you knew the answer. Anyway, God - One Being - three persons - saves. Jesus is the "person" usually thought of as the "Savior". But - God saves.

 

But in the other scripture, the old testament god proclaims that he is god and savior, and there is no other ? Did you read it? If god 'saves' in the OT, why'd he have to send us a savior in the NT?

In Isaiah 45 the “LORD” is speaking. “LORD” indicates the tetragrammaton, “YHWH”, “I AM” (see Ex. 3:14). Jesus claimed to be “I AM”. Jesus is “LORD” in Isaiah 45.

 

There is One God - three persons. Therefore there is no other god - none of the idols, false gods, etc. worshiped by people were the One True God. Isaiah speaks often against false gods.

 

God saves - He saved the nation of Israel (on earth) many times. He also offers us salvation (restored relationship) from the consequence of sin (death) on an earthly level and more fully on a spiritual level. God is out of time, but we are in time. Jesus came when the time was right for earth. But first testament people were also able to have a restored relationship with God (“salvation”). Jesus’ saving earthly work was for people of all times.

 

You are probably a darling person, but I don't believe any of it anymore - I don't believe that there were people names Adam and Eve and therefore, I don't believe in original sin - therefore - I don't need a savior to save me - even if there were 2,000 saviors in the whole bible. I guess thats it in a nutshell.