Okay but, there's no way to prove the *intent* of Matthew, is there?

Certainly, but you must allow me time to do research. I'm tellin' ya, I just haven't had time. I apologize. Bad joke on my part.

Okay.

Symbolism. Eternal truths can be conveyed via symbolism... Symbolism... God talking to us like little children. Would you rather he told us how he invented atoms and the like? What would we, with our little monkey minds, have gleaned from that? Instead, he told us what we need to know to understand life on earth, including the devil's role as the deceiver in our everyday lives.

Sure, why the hell not superimpose a level of complexity not even hinted at by the original myths. Or go ahead and abstract the old dogmas to the point of their complete irrelevance as actual claims on the physical world.

Yes. That would have been great. It would have saved us a lot of time and provided a much more convincing case that the Bible is right.

'What he told us' at least in Genesis, was a pack of lies. Either that or it was not written by an all-knowing god.

I'm going to propose an alternate mode of discourse here. Sugarfree, why don't you try pretending you don't believe, and then reasoning your faith? You are looking to challenge your faith, right? Then rather than asking us to prove a negative, which is very difficult, why don't you set about proving the existence of god from scratch, and the atheists here can point out any errors in your thinking.

Now that's just cold.  

Well, that's what I've been attempting to do, but many of you have said, in more words, that my answers are dumb.

 I think the fundamental problem is that you all are hooked on logic and the existance of God cannot be proven soley by logic.  It's like you are treating logic as your god and worshipping it, tho you all would probably profess to not worship anything.

To begin to understand God, you have to tap into your intuition, creativity, emotions also.  Plus you need to let go of the need to try to always figure things out on your own.  You have to throw all your questions on the floor and be content with a mess for awhile, and allow God to piece everything together and reveal the truth to you rather than trying to design it for yourself.  This is what I did about a decade ago.  And, life is much better now that I'm not analyzing each and every little thing.  I have grown much as a person, in faith AND knowledge.

I don't know everything, I don't have all the logical answers, that's OK, it doesn't mean I'm dumb, it just means I am patiently waiting because I know the truth will be revealed to me in due time.

fine

I did not attend church as I was growing up. I made the decision to become a Christian in college.

Ignorance means the lack of knowledge. All of us are ignorant on a multitude of topics and knowledgeable in only a few.

I was just showing that we have many many original texts of the New Testament. If Jesus was just an ordinary man who died on a cross, was buried and decayed in a grave, why were so many people interested in him, and why did his message spread so quickly. I think he must have been extraordinary in order for so many people to care so much. This to me is worth studying more than to studying to prove that he didn't exist.
I currently don't have an answer for this. I plan to read some of Lee Strobel's work, who was an atheist who became a Christian as he was trying to prove Christianity was wrong. If you know of a good book written by an author who explains why he/she was a Christian and decided to become an atheist, please suggest it. I will read both, compare the two, and draw my own conclusions.

I was speaking specifically of knowledge gained simply for knowledge's sake, as in a professor who constantly learns learns learns, but never applies. I got really annoyed with that sort of attitude in college.
Neither you, nor I can possibly measure this.

How does one come by this "understanding" of the bible "on both a historical and symbolic level"? If indeed this "understanding" were so universally attainable, why are there so many divisions within christianity, each having their own "understanding"? I've asked this before and you've answered this before. Yet now we are back where we started, with the claim that there's a proper way to read jesus' words, but that everyone else is reading them improperly.

With all due respect, when presented with biblical morality, we are obliged to re-invent the wheel. Sacrificing your son (Abraham), offering your daughters to strangers (Lot), stoning, killing off entire villages (Leviticus), etc.? In truth, it really makes no sense to slavishly consult a non-integral religious text compiled 2,000 years ago, for informing our morality in a post-industrial society.  In today's world, technology and globalization present us with challenges inconceivable centuries ago. Yes, some maxims are timeless ("do unto others...&quot. But when we are faced with issues specific to our day and age -- in vitro fertilization, stem cell research, overpopulation, global warming -- the bible has nothing to offer, and we effectively ensure our downfall by using it.

Please share your story.

Agreed. Science admits its own ignorance, even as it gathers new knowledge every day. It is fallacious to think scientific knowledge represents absolute truth -- it most certainly doesn't. The problem with religion , however, is that it does posture as absolute truth. Whatever your god and whatever your holy text, it purports to explain humanity's place in the universe in an absolute and unassailable manner, and to define the meaning of our lives for all times and places. Specific to our discussion: Before taking on the role christianity defines for you in an absolute sense, it is best to be as knowledgable as possible about its central figure, and the conditions which gave rise to the religion. It is best not to be ignorant about jesus' lack of historical validity, and the mythical nature of christian beliefs.

I am still not sure what that has to do with the Hellenic philosophers, but no matter; we were originally discussing the historical accuracy of the N.T., and the lack of contemporary references corroborating the claims of the N.T. Mentioning 'original texts' in itself does nothing to advance the N.T.'s historical accuracy.

Once again: If he was in fact so extraordinary, why is the bible the only reference to him throughout all history? He healed blind men, walked on water, fed the multitude, ROSE FROM THE DEAD...and nobody else cared to make note of it?

Observe how quickly Islam, Mormonism and Scientology have spread. The rapid spread of irrational belief among humans is a continuing phenomenon. There is no reason to treat christianity uniquely.

And if we are talking about a heaven-or-hell decision here, we had best prove that jesus existed before choosing christianity. Otherwise, we might be worshipping the wrong god ... and then what?

As far as a book to read, I would suggest "Atheist Universe" -- and not because you see it advertised on this site. It does in fact present challenging questions, as well as an account of how he as a believer, gave up his belief in the midst of witnessing to others.

Talk to you soon!

OK Let us start from the beginning. There are key questions that you have failed to answer.

1) Kierkegaard's leap of faith problem is something I often pose. Christians often use the unmoved mover argument or Intelligent Design etc. I can debunk these. But before doing so I hold up my hand and say "Stop. How is this a priori reasoning to attempt to prove "God" as some sort of vague philisophical concept have any connection to the Deities of religion?" The leap of faith is a utterly astounding. The Universe is no more evidence for the omnipotency of the trinity and Jesus any more than it is evidence for Allah or Lord Brahma. You know full well that should you have been born in a Muslim country you would be Muslim. In India, a Hindu, in Israel a Jew. How is there any more evidence for the Bible and Christ than for Allah and the Qur'an? You cannot reason your way out of religious mythology by using modal logic.

 

Wow, we certainly disagree on a lot. Here goes...

It's not about reading it properly or improperly, its about admitting that it can (and should) be read on different levels. I'm sure you've had a literature class. I'm talking about reading it, employing the techniques you use to interpret literature. Also, read it as a historical account. That's all I'm saying.

My classes on comparative mythology helped me understand that cultures develop myths, however, when you compare these myths from culture to culture, they often contain the same or similar universal truth. What I am suggesting is that this is a possibility...God has a greater plan, he looked at all peoples on the earth, saw that the Jews were among a group of people who understood Him best, so that is why they became his "chosen" people. Not because they were "better" people, but because they were the best vehicle via which to reveal Himself to all the world. And he continues to reveal Himself to the world incrementally, piece by piece. His plan is playing itself out as we speak.

OK, I know you know this, because I can tell you have done your homework. Christians are not bound to Old Testament law! When Jesus died there was a new beginning (a new covenant). The old covenant, the one that was started with Moses, ended with his death. The old covenant was rules based. The new covenant is not. In the old testament, God revealed himself thru prophets. In the new covenant, God reveals himself thru everyday people.

And BTW: Abraham didn't sacrifice his son. Yes, that story is completely frightening, but the point was that God was finding out if Abraham would do anything for Him. But, he told Abraham to stop before Abraham went thru with it. I'm not to the Lot story yet, haven't read it myself. As far as that other stuff, I don't know. I don't have an answer. But, again, as a Christian, I am not bound by Old Testament law.

Oh geez, I'll try to make this short. My mom attended church some when I was little, and she brought me along. Then she got sick of the types of things you guys are discussing here (shallow believers), so we quit. Plus, I was in a lot of extra-curricular. In high school, I played around with different ideas, would have considered myself an agnostic for a certain period of time. Called religion a "crutch", called Christians simple-minded, blamed them for the world's evils and all that. But, I am also a very creative person, have always written poetry, music, etc., and when I am really in the "zone", I simply cannot deny that I am not alone in this universe, that my ideas are not coming from me alone. I feel I am being assisted in the creative process. So I was never able to fully deny the existance of God. Studied human aura and all that new agey stuff. Read Embraced By the Light and thought it was so great.

Then, when I became clinically depressed (situational and genetic) it all changed for me. I really did not want to kill myself even tho I felt suicidal and really would have rather died. So, for the sake of survival, I had to start searching. I started going to church. While I was listening to the pastor's messages, I felt human again, which...the depression was like having my humanity and my entire identity stripped. Also, dealt with depression off and on after college, and while feeling really depressed driving to work, I started listening to Christian radio. Again, it was the only thing that made me feel human.

So, I decided, there must be something to this. And, I also realized, here I was, always searching for answers, but these Christians had a peace about them. I wanted that. So here I am. After I became baptized, I took Jesus' advice "seek, knock, and you will find" so I started doing that regarding my depression, and I have learned much about what has caused it... That is why I am sugar free. Literally. I do not eat refined sugar. It's part of the process I am going thru to heal the depression. I don't expect Jesus is going to heal me with one click of his wand. I know I have to do some of the work myself.

But, back to having my identity "stripped" from me by the depression...that's when I realized I am not constant. I realized, I couldn't always trust my human faculty of reasoning, because depression/mental illness strips that away from you. I realized, my personal truth is ever changing and as a result unreliable. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that Truth must come from outside of myself, i.e., God. To phrase that a little differently--for me, truth has to come from outside of myself because experience has proven to me that my mind is not 100% reliable.

Okay, this is sad. We don't even agree about science. I argue that science is in the process of revealing God's absolute truth.
Neither you nor I will ever win the argument on Jesus' existence. The fact of the matter is, all this took place 2000 years ago. We have to take the knowledge we have been presented by archeologists and scholars, be on the lookout for personal bias, and then make up our own minds.

It's 2000 years later, I live in podunk U.S.A. and I know about it. If his message was not powerful, it would have died out! (Emphasis, is not anger, I'm am feeling passionate about this at the moment.) If people weren't transformed by his message EVEN TODAY, it would have fizzled. Besides, the gospels were written separately and THEN compiled into one book. And, there are the gnostic gospels as well, which are still being uncovered. AND besides, not a lot of people had pens and paper back then!! (Nor did they have the news or internet.)

Don't even get me started on Scientology, and if I say what I really feel about Mormonism and Islam, you'll probably say I'm dumb in a smarter sounding way.

If everything is relative, than you can never prove anything so why even bother with science and logic???

Okay, thank you, I will look into it. Does it belittle Christians and call them simple-minded a lot, because I don't want to read 200 pp of that.

Again, please don't mistake my emphasis as anger. It is not.

That would be low serotonin, low beta endorphin...both of which I have. No I don't think I have little demons dancing around in my head.

Sorry, I do not know what this is. I am new to this atheist versus theist thing.

GreyHoundMama: You sound like you are intrinsically a very good and gifted person.  Have you ever been to the bottom of the barrel tho?  Personally, I mean.  Like a drunk who has hit rock bottom?  I mean, been so low that you wanted to die...?

You're right, it's all true! I'm mad at god! I've been so blind all these years!
Don't start in with that silliness. I have no patience with religion because it's just so stupid hearing about it makes my head hurt.

Oh really? Where are they? The earliest bits of the New Testament we have are from centuries after the events described, and those are copies of earlier documents which long ago decayed.

Simple. They weren't and it didn't. Up until the third century or so, Christianity was a small minority sect of a small minority religion. Most people wrote it off as just another sect of Judaism, and the Romans didn't accept Judaism anyway. It didn't take off until Constantine did his thing.

There were tons of similar belief systems in that era, all with followers and mystics. Christianity appealed to the Jews and Gentiles not because of the strength of the evidence, but because it gave them hope. The people who would have looked at the evidence weren't the ones who converted; some of them even derided Christianity. The ones who converted were not the elite but the underclass, who wanted a better life and hope that the cruel Romans would get what was coming to them, and the underclass were far more likely to belief on faith than by evidence.

Richard Carrier, a historian, has an excellent article on the general subject of the acceptance of Christianity here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/

It's not exactly what you're talking about, but it is enlightening.

 If that doesn't work, I have other ways of convincing you. I have here a cookie. If you convert you can have it. (I suspect the offer of a reward, rather than rational investigation, is more like how most people convert to religion anyway.)

Okay, nevermind then. 

sugarfree
I wish more christians would be like you and at least try to find out what other people think, but at the same time you are saying some things that are very strange. For example you said that god wanted to see if Abraham would “do anything for him”, but doesn’t god know everything already? Didn’t god know that he would be willing to murder his son before he created the universe?

Also if there is a god that wants you to believe certain things then why would he make it so easy to not believe? Why would he create such flimsy evidence to base those beliefs on? If it’s of such vital importance then why not offer some concrete evidence, or at least create a situation where believing things without evidence has no negative consequences?

If you think there is good evidence then why do you think the majority of the most intelligent people disbelieve?

There is a word for the quality of willingness to believe things that lack supporting evidence, its called credulity. Why do you think a god would reward you for being credulous when it’s such a negative quality to posses?

It is about reading it properly or improperly, if we're talking about god. How can we read it simultaneously as literature and historical account? Literature is open to multiple interpretations. Yet noone has sought to build a religion with a universal moral code on a reading of Hamlet. Nations have not gone to war over conflicting interpretations of Huckleberry Finn (at least not yet). Is jesus supposed to be interpreted in multiple ways? Furthermore, it is impossible to read the bible as historical account. It is riddled with irresoluble errors. The gosepls themselves are incompatible on many details. I would have thought we had already established this by now. Was I not clear about this before?

Whereupon he endorsed the subjugation and genocide of other peoples (such as the Canaanites). How were they "the best vehicle"? There are multiple instances throughout the O.T. where they anger god greatly. The Tibetans or the Eskimos would have been far less troublesome in my opinion.

Where does jesus himself say that the old 'morality' should be deferred? Did he not say in the gospels that "not one jot or tittle of the law" should be discarded?

Science certainly doesn't reveal the absolute truth of the biblical god. Science also admits the possibility of error, and is open to revision based on new evidence, unlike the bible.

If we are talking about god, it shouldn't matter that it happened 2000 years ago, nor should we have to rely on the knowledge of "archaeologists and scholars". If god really wants us to believe in him, the story should be a little clearer than it is. I hope you are not insinuating that I am exercising personal bias. I do not accept the historicity of Alexander, Caesar, Lincoln or Elvis on personal bias, but rather on the ample evidence supporting them as historical figures. Neither do I reject jesus as a valid historical figure on personal bias. If anything I initially was biased towards jesus because of how I was raised. The lack of evidence in support of historicity as well as the evidence for his mythological origins prevailed upon my bias.

The message of Krishna existed 3000 years before jesus, and is still going strong. The message of Mohammed came 600 years after jesus, and is now challenging it for world dominance.

Go ahead and get started on Scientology, and say what you really feel about Mormonism and Islam. Until you demonstrate otherwise, your argument here is special pleading: You hold that christianity is true and spread because it is true; yet you hold that these other religions are false, and spread for some reason other than being true.

Where did I claim that everything is relative? I am only saying that if we cannot prove that jesus exists (or ever existed), then it is more sensible not to believe in him at all.

No, it addresses christian beliefs in an intelligent manner, and recounts how the author as a christian lost his faith -- which is what you asked for in the first place.

You needn't point out that you are not angry. I have not yet accused you of being angry as you accused me.

Most Graciously Yours,

Zarathustra

You read it as literature and historical account simply by doing just that. Sit down and read it like it is a novel. Next, sit down and read it for it's historical value. You do not have to believe that every thing is spot on historically accurate, however, you can learn about past culture, places, practices, etc. Thirdly, you can sit down and read it with your judgement cap off, and see if that changes your perception of it.

That's just it, it isn't about our opinions, it's about God's. He is smarter than all of us. I do not know how to set life in motion. He does.

Jesus fulfilled the law by living a perfect life according to the law. He indwells in us and acts as our advocate before God, therefore, we are not bound by the Old Testament laws in order reach God. (You cannot employ logic to understand all this, logic is not the end all be all, God is more than logic, truth is more than logic. Logic is one of God's tools, not to be worshipped.)

If the Bible means nothing to you, why have you spent so much time studying this? Also, I think Jesus was right when he said (in different words) his teachings would incite anger and/or resentment. You have to agree that he was right about that one thing?

If God did exist, do you think he would need our advice and opinions to get his job done? If he does exist, he's already proven he knows a heck of a lot more than either of us. And yes, I am suggesting we all have our own personal biases and they flavor our writing. There is no way around that.

Fair enough.



False prophecy.

This is just the sense I get from your posts.

Then we have an understanding on at least one issue.

You are doing this again sugarfree, quoting two lines and focusing on that. You are diverting from the question at hand. Read it again, but ignore the special pleading part.

Special pleading means you are giving your religion a free "evidence pass" into what you accept as true for no inherent reason. If I told you that frozen yoghurt made you fly, you would require some hard evidence. But because religion is an institution which is not based on evidence, it gets away with things no other human endevour would.  

Human's are fallible. We will screw up no matter what. If there was not religion, there would still be events like the twin towers. Wasn't Stalin an atheist?

Oh please not this. The reason religion is to be despised is because of it's dogmatic nature. Those men on September 11th believed in blind insane dogma unquestioningly. Likewise, the communist regimes were dogmatic and unquestioning. The irrationality of religion is not it's inherent problem, rather it's dogmatic nature, as based on unfalsifiable mythology. If religion were not dogmatic, we would not see what we see today. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, religion is left as by far the largest force of dogmatism in the world. And history teaches us that dogmatism, be it any kind, is a terrible force.

Now, are you going to respond to my question in the previous post, or continue to postulate and quote several irrelevant lines?

Enough with the logic, and knowledge, and all that.  Thank you for allowing me to talk with you all, and thank you deepening my knowledge that Jesus is in fact real.  I can't explain it to you all with words.  It is beyond words.  It is beyond anything human.  I didn't know Jesus before.  I didn't understand who He was, I didn't understand why He died for me.  But He did.  He is like a gentle father.  He is holding out His hand.  He wants you, just like He wanted me.  He mends your heart.  He fills it, and with Him you are not even afraid of eternity, because He will be here.  I'm telling you, my heart is breaking for you.  It is so simple to find Him.  Just call out his name.  If you don't believe me now, just remember this post, and someday, when you are at your wits end, remember that He has boundless love stored up for you that He wants to give you.  You just have to open your heart to it.  Please do not be closed off to it.  He is pursuing you.  He is pursuing all of you just like he pursued me.

 Prayerfully, 

 Jessica 

You tell me to read it like a novel. I already pointed out that permits multiple interpretations (as evidenced -- once again by the thousands of different christian denominations), in other words, something other than clear, objective truth.

Next, you tell me to read it for it's historical value. I already asked you to demonstrate that it has any historical value. If this is god, Mr. Perfect, why shouldn't it be spot on historically accurate?

You can learn about past culture, places, practices etc. in National Geographic or from Will & Ariel Durant -- with far greater accuracy and far less bias than the bible provides.

Read it with my judgment cap off? Have you tried reading it with your faith cap off? I read it already as a firm believer -- my perceptions could not possibly be more favorable to god this time around.

If god in all his smartness things the killing off of entire peoples is acceptable as part of his really smart plan, he owes us the common courtesy of making himself a little more obvious. Otherwise, you can understand that a moral aversion to genocide precludes me giving a less than obvious god any respect.

If I cannot employ logic to understand all this, then I am not obliged to understand all this. I can just as easily claim that the god of any religion is beyond logic, and that you simply have to accept god X on faith. There is nothing unique about christianity in this regard.

I first studied the bible as a believer. I maintain study of the bible now, as christian prosletizers continuously foist scripture upon me in support of their religion, and expect me to blindly accept it. After several exchanges now, you are yet to explain to me why the bible means something to you, what with its multiple errors and historical intractability. Please recall that your citation of the ancient Greek writers was inapplicable.

If he did exist? He wouldn't need our advice and opinions, but he should either do a better job of making himself known, or at least not get too angry if reasonable people decline to believe in him on account of lack of evidence. And suppose he didn't exist...

How so? Please answer this question; because if he's proven what he knows, he's proven he exists!

Are you conceding that your belief in jesus reflects a personal bias?

Fair enough? Are you ready to start worshipping Krishna then?

This is all you have to say to dismiss all 3, after saying "Don't even get me started on Scientology, and if I say what I really feel about Mormonism and Islam, you'll probably say I'm dumb in a smarter sounding way"? I'm sorry, you will have to do better than that, particularly after citing christianity's rapid spread in support of its validity. How did these "false prophecies" spread so quickly? Could not christianity just be another fast-spreading "false prophecy"? Once again, this is what I am referring to when I say "special pleading". In the case of christianity, X confirms that christianity is true, yet in the case of all other religions where we notice X, it doesn't apply.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. I do not hold that truth is relative, nor do I see it suggested in my posts.

I'm glad that you would like us all to find Jesus, Jessica, it is really moving. However, what would you say if I stated I would be more inclined to believe that Thoth wanted me to find him? Even if I were to find "God" (I think about this often), I am skeptical as to whether or not it would be the God of Christianity.

 

To follow up on the special pleading question: Why Christianity?

 

This has to be the most cowardly thing I've ever seen a theist do on these forums. She shows up, challenging us to disprove god, many of us are kind enough to oblige, and then to try this kind of cop-out... It's just so dishonest. What a fucking waste of time.

It seems like she just showed up so that she could say she'd challenge her faith, but never planned to entertain any sort of doubt. This sign-off seems to prove that.

Translation:
I don't need a reason to believe in god, I just do, and so should you.

Who's afraid of eternity? I'm not gonna be around that long.

Cruci Fiction--

There is much bitterness, anger, and hate on this board.  Despite that, I don't know if I will leave for good.  I don't know if any of you will open your hearts enough to let Jesus in.  Last night, I was simply telling you what was in my heart.  If you don't like it, that is fine.  If you don't like the fact that I care about you, that is fine, too.  I just had to voice those thoughts. 

Deludedgod: I was not trying

Deludedgod: I was not trying to reason with you. I was talking from my heart. Take it or leave it.

You most certianly did mislead us in the beginning! You claimed to have an open mind but if you wall yourself off from reason (which you freely admitted in the above statement) then convincing you was an inherently pointless waste of time! What was the point of coming to the board if you could not be convinced by rational argument? Your proposition is nonsensical! Why did you even bother to come to the forum?

In the first post you said "I'm listening". Well, you most certianly did not! You started out fine, and the discussion was going along well, but as soon as your logic collapsed in the face of the elite assemblage of logicians and philosophers at this site, you started claiming you "had faith from the heart not the mind" and that your faith was not subject to rational argument. Typical. Rings distinctly of Kierkegaard. At least you are honest. Most theists on the site desperately try to avoid admitting they have "faith". They try to construe a rational basis for their belief, because they know if they do not provide one, they will get slammed.

You lied to us from the start.