Jump to content

Gary Habermas


fluffyapple

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
17 minutes ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

3) Then you have to assume, without conclusive evidence, that what your interpretation of the bible is, is true as well. "

 

this is untrue.  and first starting out in Christianity this is could be quite foolish, though not ar first perhaps seen by a Christian.  it is also unwise to be too much that way (if you haven't studied and searched and asked questions first alot).  it is dishonest (or can be).  it does not show true humility necessarily, but could be ego and pride or assumptions.

 

and Christ is not such. "take my yoke upon you and learn of me for i am meek and lowly of heart and you will find rest for your souls.

 

@Christianchat_Chat Could you rephrase this post? I am not sure what you are trying to argue here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hierophant said:

 

@Christianchat_Chat Could you rephrase this post? I am not sure what you are trying to argue here.

 

yes, i can try.  i might have added some below and maybe about other things you said in the other post.

 

 

the foundation of Christianity is Christ.

 

it is not a good idea to assume too much - as a Christian (or as an Ex-Christian either).

 

beginners in Christianity (like children) can be quite unknowledgable and unlearned (kindergarten).

 

they may need to become/act like more Christ in order to see the errors in their thinking/ways

 

(or as the case may be for many here - people acted/taught so unlike Christ that they saw the error).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Christianchat_Chat,

 

I'm afraid that still tells us nothing.  Let me show you by example:

 

the foundation of Buddhism is the Buddha.

 

it is not a good idea to assume too much - as a Buddhist (or as an Ex-Buddhist either).

 

beginners in Buddhism (like children) can be quite unknowledgable and unlearned (kindergarten).

 

they may need to become/act like more the Buddha in order to see the errors in their thinking/ways

 

(or as the case may be for many here - people acted/taught so unlike the Buddha that they saw the error).

 

I appreciate the effort, but hopefully you can that simply swapping the religion leaves us in the same position.  It doesn't move the needle in either direction nor does it bring enlightenment on any points.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

"If X," is a presupposition claim.

Continuing on this theme, systematic thinking builds logically upon assumptions.

 

A great example is the ancient geometry of Euclid, where simple axioms about parallel lines etc have been used to systematically analyse the fundamental universal properties of mathematical shapes such as triangles, in an imagined world where parallel lines never meet at infinity.

 

When it comes to theology, the axioms of conventional Christianity conflict with basic axioms of science.

 

Science assumes that laws of nature exist as universal consistent descriptions of objective reality, and that we should not endorse any truth claim without sufficient evidence from systematic observation.  Saying such laws exist just means that finding and explaining them is the goal of fundamental scientific research.  While some philosophers have complicated (and in my view stupid) disagreements with this description of the nature of science, it is good enough to explain why conventional theology is held in such poor repute in academia, due to its inconsistency with scientific thought.

 

Theology basically constructed an imaginary fantasy world to support the corrupt political security interests of the Roman Empire. In this fantasy of Gospel Truth of Christendom, it was a capital crime to question the axiomatic assumptions about the historical Jesus depicted in the Bible. Current theology has direct continuity with that violent legacy of Christendom.  As such, theology rests on brutal intimidation, together with emotional comfort for the ignorant, for its psychological and political hold on believers. All literal claims about the Bible and miracles etc are fundamentally corrupted by this longstanding false Christendom mentality.  If Christians were serious about redeeming the world from corruption and moving toward a state of grace, they would completely replace their unethical literal assumptions with a recognition that all the stories in the Bible are purely symbolic in their real underlying meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
4 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

yes, i can try.  i might have added some below and maybe about other things you said in the other post.

 

 

the foundation of Christianity is Christ.

 

it is not a good idea to assume too much - as a Christian (or as an Ex-Christian either).

 

beginners in Christianity (like children) can be quite unknowledgable and unlearned (kindergarten).

 

they may need to become/act like more Christ in order to see the errors in their thinking/ways

 

(or as the case may be for many here - people acted/taught so unlike Christ that they saw the error).

 

The underlying problem is that Christianity is an unproven assumption. It is an assertion of facts without evidence to support the assertions. Even the quips of theology you threw out are your  assumptions about what Christianity is. And the reality is that even if we granted some umbrella concept of Christianity being true, nobody is in a position to know what it really is. The Bible is internally inconsistent; being "Christ like" in the Bible is not systematic. There is the book by Albert Schweitzer called The Quest of the Historical Jesus a Critical Study of Its Progress From Reimarus to Wrede. In the book, Schweitzer calls the quest for the historical Jesus much like people looking into a well and seeing their own reflection. Jesus, for anyone who studies the character, seems to extrapolate an idea that Jesus is just like they are! "Jesus supports gays; Jesus was a pacifist; Jesus was meek and mild; Jesus was a communist; Jesus was more of a progressive liberal; Jesus was more of a gun-toting republican." People see Jesus how they want (even unintentionally) to see him, and in the 21st century, we are wholly unaware of what the historical Jesus was even like, if he even existed. The Bible is a mixture of outright fabrications; pseudo-history; historical fiction; fables; ancient myth; and impossible stories with historical window dressing.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

this is untrue.  and first starting out in Christianity this is could be quite foolish, though not ar first perhaps seen by a Christian.  it is also unwise to be too much that way (if you haven't studied and searched and asked questions first alot).  it is dishonest (or can be).  it does not show true humility necessarily, but could be ego and pride or assumptions.

 

I dont really understand what your trying to say here. It looks like a bunch of confused gibberish with a Bible verse at the end? 

 

Are you saying it is unwise to be stuck on one specific interpretation and that maybe new Christians do this foolishly? But they should ask questions themselves? 

 

If so then you are saying that no denomination has it all right and that every Christian should always question their denominations set of doctrinal belief. 

 

From the ExC perspective I agree. Christians should question everything their church says. They should search and search and search this scriptures to prove the points their pastors make. Because that is exactly what brought most of us here. Searching the scriptures to find everlasting life may end up just setting them truly free. Free from the yoke of Jesus and his baby killing genocidal father. 

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

If people believe the claim without the convincing evidence, so what? Does the fact that people believe my unproven claim make my claim any more true? 

 

Josh is spot on. If we concluded every if we heard was true then anything could be fact. Let's do this in reverse ok. I want to give you my own list of what if's. 

 

If archeologists had been able to prove the narrative of the old testament. I would possibly still believe. 

 

If scholars hadn't analyzed the writings of the old testament and found that multiple authors wrote it over the course of centuries. I would possibly still believe. 

 

If the story of the tower of babel weren't so ridiculous and obviously made up. I might possibly believe. 

 

If the Flood of Noah actually happened then I might still believe. 

 

Also If it were possible for just 2 of every kind from that story to have sustained their existence. I might believe. 

 

If cane hadn't found a wife, in another land called Nod when there were up to this point NO other people than his mom and Dad. Maybe I wouldn't have questioned the validity of christianities claims. 

 

If their weren't so many contradictions that the list seems unending than just maybe I would believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. 

 

If Moses' supposed law didn't give rights to rapists to basically buy their victim from their father. Maybe I could believe in a loving, reasonable, God that loved ALL his people. 

 

If scholars hadn't gone through the epistles of Paul and determined that only half of them were even written by one person. (Again only presumably paul)

 

If God actually kept his promises. I might believe. 

 

If God actually answered prayer I might believe.

 

If whole cities weren't listed in the Bible that didn't even exist during the time frame of the narrative. I might believe.

 

All of us here could come up with a what if list a mile long that would have led us to a different conclusion other than the Bible is BULLSHIT! 

 

But do you want to know the difference between my list and that of Gary's? My list can be verified and proven. My list is a result of years of study and conclusions made by scientists and scholars with an education. Extensive educations that make them professionals in their fields of study. And its not just one or two here and there. It is multiple people, multiple studies, years of research that Ironically in some instances were genuinely done trying to prove the Bible genuine and true. These people don't have to say If this or If that. All they have to do is say, "the evidence says X." They deal in facts not "what if."

 

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of those 2000 years ago. In the shoes of the very people that believed in Zeus and Hades. If you are standing in those peoples shoes and you came across a group of people telling a different but more relatable story than that of the Greek narrative. Do you not think that that would appeal to them? And to a good portion of jews they hear that their long awaited messiah had already come and went. But lo and behold. These people say he rose again. Don't you think 2000 years ago that might have been a movement in that area that people could rally behind? They didn't have the need for proof like we do today. In that time I'm sure the story of Jesus sounded much more believable than that of Greek mythology? Basically for the Jews that believed it was a fulfillment and for the Greeks (or gentiles) they deconverted from Greek mythology and converted to Christianity. 

 

Well guess what. Its 2021 now. Not 40 a.d. if you can ignore 2000 years of human advancement and research. Go right ahead. It is your right to keep your head in the clouds, dreaming of golden streets, and pearly gates. I think I'll just stay grounded in reality if you don't mind.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hierophant said:

 

.. being "Christ like" in the Bible is not systematic.

 

not in the Bible... in yourself.  the Bible can help us 'see', understand certain truths in life, and so can many other things, but it is "the spirit" that leads to (all) truth (i believe).

 

"God is spirit"

 

24) God is a Spirit.--Better, God is spirit. His will has been expressed in the seeking. But His very nature and essence is spirit, and it follows from this that all true worship must be spiritual. The appeal is here made to a doctrine of special prominence in the Samaritan theology. They had altered a number of passages in the Pentateuch, which seemed to them to speak of God in language properly applicable to man, and to ascribe to Him human form and feelings. But to believe in the spiritual essence of God contained its own answer both as to place and mode of worship.

The second "Him" ("they that worship Him") should be omitted, as the italics show.

 

Verse 24. - A still more explicit and comprehensive reason is given for the previous assertion, based on the essential nature of God himself in the fulness of his eternal Being. God is Spirit (Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός; cf. John 1:1, Θεὸς η΅ν ὁ Λόγος, - the article indicates the subject, and the predicate is here generic, and not an indefinite; therefore we do not render it, "God is a Spirit"). The most comprehensive and far-reaching metaphor or method by which Jesus endeavoured to portray the fundamental essence of the Divine Being is "Spirit," not body, not ὕλη, not κόσμος, but that deep inner verity presented in self-conscious ego; the substantia of which mind may be predicated, and all its states and faculties. The Father is Spirit, the Son is Spirit, and Spirit is the unity of the Father and the Son. St. John has recorded elsewhere that "God is Light," and "God is Love." These three Divine utterances are the sublimest ever formed to express the metaphysical, intellectual, and moral essence of the Deity. They are unfathomably deep, and quite inexhaustible in their suggestions, and yet they are not too profound for even a little child or a poor Samaritaness to grasp for practical purposes. If God be Spirit, then they who worship him, the Spirit, must by the nature of the case, must by the force of a Divine arrangement, worship him, if they worship him at all, in spirit and in truth. The truth which our Lord uttered was not unknown in the Old Testament. From Genesis to Malachi, in the Psalms, in the historical books, in Judges, Samuel, and Kings, the Spirit and the spirituality of God are presupposed; but the Lord has generalized these teachings, cited them from darkness and neglect, combined them in one eternal oracle of Divine truth. The Galilaean Peasant has thus uttered the profoundest truth of ethic and religion - one which no sage in East or West had ever surpassed, and towards which the highest minds in all the ages of Christendom have been slowly making approach.

 

8 hours ago, Hierophant said:

 

People see Jesus how they want (even unintentionally) to see him, and in the 21st century,

 

this is because they are not all really wanting/trying to follow Him enough (spirit and truth).   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

this is because they are not all really wanting/trying to follow Him enough (spirit and truth).   

 

You think you have it ALL FIGURED out. "Oh well thats because they aren't really wanting/trying " such BS. 

 

Ok Christian chit chat. In this comment above you just judged fellow Christians. Let me ask you this.

 

Who are you to know the hearts of your fellow man? Are you a God? 

 

What happened to Judge not lest ye be judged, for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judge. With what measure you meet it shall be measured unto you again.

 

Hierophants observation is true. Jesus to you is going to be different than even the man/woman setting next to you in church.  Listening to the same sermon your listening to. Or even maybe preaching..... ? Are you a preacher? I dunno. I dont claim to know the hearts and minds of men. 

3 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

not in the Bible... in yourself.  the Bible can help us 'see', understand certain truths in life, and so can many other things, but it is "the spirit" that leads to (all) truth (i believe

 

So what is "all truth" apparently you feel you have the spirit. Please enlighten. Because IMHO whatever "truth" you think you have is subject to interpretation. Your truth that you whole heartedly believe is true and correct is going to be a lot different than say a Baptist, methodist, pentecostal, or catholic truth. (I figured I would name a few since I dont know your denomination. Either way

 

There was a time in my life I thought God was giving me all the answers too. I thought he was speaking to me directly and I was seeing things in scripture that my church wasn't seeing in both denominations I was a part of. But I learned quickly that if you try to show someone your truth. If it doesn't coincide with their truth. You will be either rebuked or politely ignored. It might just be a good talking to. "You'll grow in the Lord and you will come to understand why the church teaches it this way" or "sometimes we just have to have faith". 

 

Honestly, I hope you and every other christian that comes to this site deconverts. I mean your already here anyway. I honestly just can't stand to see yalls close minded viewpoints sometimes. Basically. Christians suck. They are really the only ones that think they are so good and holy. Everyone else sees you as oppressive judgemental assholes for the most part. I know thats how I view my former self at points in time in my christian walk. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
7 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:
15 hours ago, Hierophant said:

People see Jesus how they want (even unintentionally) to see him, and in the 21st century,

 

this is because they are not all really wanting/trying to follow Him enough (spirit and truth).   

 

And this is where YOU are proving his point! 

 

You will demonstrate to readers what it looks like when someone sees the "real jesus" through their own subjective lens. And you'll do it by a methodology of cherry picking verses to suit your own subjective opinion. You will ignore verses to the contrary of your preferred subjective lens. But the verses that you choose to ignore, will be the subjective lens that 'someone else' chooses to establish their own subjective lens of who the "real jesus" is. 

 

A good example is that someone who wants to see a warrior jesus will cherry pick warrior verses with similar imagery. Someone who wants to see a prince of peace will pick out the peaceful verses and ignore or excuse the warrior imagery. That's how people come up with a commie jesus, dooms day preacher, average joe guy, god on earth, gnostic type, buddhist in Israel, etc., etc. 

 

The reality here is that jesus is a composite character of mythological stories expressed through the lens of many different writers with differing opinions. All tossed in together sort of hap hazard and labeled the new testament, long, long after the writers wrote their opinion pieces. The contradictions and inconsistencies stem from that basis. It's a mixture of things as Hierophant pointed out. 

 

Your "spirit" claim is exactly what this sort of cherry picking looks like in real time. You take one piece of a giant puzzle and decide to settle on it as the 'real jesus' and truth, ignoring the rest of the jesus puzzle....

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

this is because they are not all really wanting/trying to follow Him enough (spirit and truth).   

 

How much is enough? What is the required amount of daily devotional hours before God decides to get involved? 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

How much is enough? What is the required amount of daily devotional hours before God decides to get involved? 

 

He is probably involved in everything (in a way), but we are all in different places in life, with different dna, and on different paths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
16 minutes ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

He is probably involved in everything (in a way), but we are all in different places in life, with different dna, and on different paths.

For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.  Romans 12:3

 

Midnite's question is a valid one.  If the above scripture is true, and god has given everyone the measure of faith, then why does god accept some people's faith as being enough, and other's faith as lacking?  If he gave me what faith I had, why then was it not enough?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2021 at 7:01 AM, fluffyapple said:

Have you guys heard of Gary and his arguments for the resurrection? I came across a YouTube video and people in the comments were talking about him turning them into christians and how modern atheism was based on ignorance. I feel kind of iffy about it because I don’t really want Christianity to be true..

 

Don't worry fluffyapple concerning the validity of religion. Just by reading Genesis and Revelations, the first and last books of the Bible, its easy to understand and realize that the basis of the bible is pure BS. It's very obvious in light of the understandings of modern science. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Just by reading Genesis and Revelations, the first and last books of the Bible, its easy to understand and realize that the basis of the bible is pure BS. It's very obvious in light of the understandings of modern science. 

No, that is not true.  Rather than bullshit, the basis of the Bible, and especially these first and last books, is metaphor.  It is the corrupt and ignorant politics of the church that degraded the metaphor into literal historical claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Robert_Tulip said:

No, that is not true.  Rather than bullshit, the basis of the Bible, and especially these first and last books, is metaphor.  It is the corrupt and ignorant politics of the church that degraded the metaphor into literal historical claims.

O.K,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Who are you to know the hearts of your fellow man? Are you a God? 

 

What happened to Judge not lest ye be judged, for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judge. With what measure you meet it shall be measured unto you again.

 

 

you believe you know the heart of another?  words can sound so awful online.  i know talking online to people we really don't know can be difficult, but sometimes when we think we see something in someone else, it might just be in ourselves.. and/or a combination, because probably no one is perfect.

 

18 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Either way

 

But I learned quickly that if you try to show someone your truth. If it doesn't coincide with their truth. You will be either rebuked or politely ignored.  It might

 

 

you might re-read your post.  it sounds very rebuky. :) and judgmenty.

 

 

18 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Ok Christian chit chat. In this comment above you just judged fellow Christians. Let me ask you this.

 

Who are you to know the hearts of your fellow man? Are you a God? 

 

What happened to Judge not lest ye be judged, for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judge. With what measure you meet  it shall be measured unto you again.

 

do you feel its 'wrong' to answer questions here and express/explain one's beliefs?  is it only wrong for Christians, or would it be wrong for everyone the same?

 

perhaps we should all just stop conversing from now on because you seem to think it's wrong... for some.  and we shouldn't judge others, right?  so one judgement for us all would be more fair a judgment, yes?  we should all stop talking .. because to any given person out there we might sound/come across as judgmental and wrong in our views?

 

18 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

I honestly just can't stand to see yalls close minded viewpoints sometimes. Basically. Christians .......... They are really the only ones that think they are so good and holy. Everyone else sees you as oppressive judgemental .......... for the most part. I know thats how I view my former self at points in time in my christian walk. 

 

i would suggest you try not to take my post too badly - this one, or that one.  posts here can make people feel awful and sad, angry and mad. and/ or so it seems.  but they probably aren't aleays intented (even quite often possibly aren't intended) as others seem to/ might take them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Robert_Tulip said:

 No, that is not true.  Rather than .........,  the basis of the Bible, and especially these first and last books, is metaphor.  It is the corrupt and ignorant politics of the church that degraded the metaphor into literal historical claims.

 

when you lose the original authors, you can longer ask them what they meant. :) :(

 

 

58 minutes ago, Robert_Tulip said:

It is the corrupt and ignorant politics of the church that degraded the metaphor into literal historical claims.

 

"winners write history - their way."  but they have kinda failed over time, thankfully.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

when you lose the original authors, you can longer ask them what they meant. :) :(

Forensics is the science of working out what actually occurred using limited information.  A forensic analysis of the Bible can piece together clues to develop the most probable explanation for extant evidence.  

Quote

"winners write history - their way."  but they have kinda failed over time, thankfully.

The most extreme example of that phenomenon is that when the Christian church became victorious in the Roman Empire, it systematically eliminated all evidence it could find that contradicted its literal story of Gospel Truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, Jesus could simply show all people the truth if He is God in clear and precise ways. He doesn't. Kind of end of story, no? :)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

you believe you know the heart of another?  words can sound so awful online.  i know talking online to people we really don't know can be difficult, but sometimes when we think we see something in someone else, it might just be in ourselves.. and/or a combination, because probably no one is perfect.

 

 

you might re-read your post.  it sounds very rebuky. :) and judgmenty.

 

 

 

do you feel its 'wrong' to answer questions here and express/explain one's beliefs?  is it only wrong for Christians, or would it be wrong for everyone the same?

 

perhaps we should all just stop conversing from now on because you seem to think it's wrong... for some.  and we shouldn't judge others, right?  so one judgement for us all would be more fair a judgment, yes?  we should all stop talking .. because to any given person out there we might sound/come across as judgmental and wrong in our views?

 

 

i would suggest you try not to take my post too badly - this one, or that one.  posts here can make people feel awful and sad, angry and mad. and/ or so it seems.  but they probably aren't aleays intented (even quite often possibly aren't intended) as others seem to/ might take them. 

Ugh....... ya know you just pretty much proved all my points on this one post right? God bless you 😉 but Your basically coming off as the usual self righteous Christian asshole. 

 

And yes my post was judgy. Because I no longer live under scriptural rules. My Bible quotes were for you. Your the one thats not supposed to judge. Not me. I am very judgy toward Christians that come here. Sure you can talk, comment, post, proselytize (to a point), etc. But I dont tolerate you guys as well as others sometimes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

@Christianchat_Chat I am not really following your line of thought; it seems a bit sporadic. Could you clarify on what exactly you are trying to argue, be that an argument for the faith, epistemology, et cetera?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Robert_Tulip said:

No, that is not true.  Rather than bullshit, the basis of the Bible, and especially these first and last books, is metaphor.  It is the corrupt and ignorant politics of the church that degraded the metaphor into literal historical claims.

 

Bigfoot: metaphor?  Or bullshit? 

 

Metaphorical Genesis equals no literal original sin. I like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LoL did he just call me Luke warm? thats funny. No friend, not luke warm at all. 0 degrees Kelvin would be more accurate. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.