Ask a Christian Theologian
- Thread starter maximilian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The question wasn't directed at me but here's my answer; I do follow Jesus. I just don't believe that Jesus is or was what you think he is.clint eastwood said:
A better question relates to God. I don't wish to worship a God that:
Requires people to worship him.
Thinks that doing so is more important than doing good works.
Tests faith constantly by providing mountains of evidence for evolution.
Doesn't want people to think for themselves.
Makes creaures that have to perform certain acts for survival, then declares those acts a sin.
Deems babies to be born full of sin, and thus worthy of execution.
And I don't want to follow religious leaders that:
Allow evil men to operate as part of the church, and refuse to condemn or expel them.
Are avaricious and greedy.
Look down on some of their fellow human beings because of an accident of genetics, or birthplace.
Concentrate on the least important aspects of their holy books.
Use holy books to justify injustice.
I find this to be complete and utter bullshit. Every motherfucking book on galileo in a LIBRARY has said that he was put under 2 inquisitions, the second one sentencing him to excommunication, then to house arrest for 9 years before he died.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I'm failing to see how the Q document challenges the perspective that we have a working copy of the new testement 99.95% free of inaccuracies from its original source. And by original source I mean the original letter etc not whether or not they used a Q source or Luke and Matthew used Mark as a base. You do realise that Q is just one of many theories for the links between the synoptic gospels, and none of the credible ones have any bearing on taking the new testement as an accurate statement of what the first followers of jesus believed?Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Inquisitions aren't necessarily torture. There is nothing in any literature to suggest that Galileo was tortured, unless you consider imprisonment in bare conditions torture in of itself. Scholars are also divided on whether he was excommunicated or not; again, this isn't clear from the evidence. Technically therefore the statements you object to could be argued true.EnglishMuffin said:
What should not be in dispute was that Galileo was put on trial for pursuing scientific enquiry and banned from presenting evidence that might disprove currently held beliefs. However since the OP is anti-catholic and it was the Pope who pronounced against Galileo I feel this is going to be a fruitless argument, as at the just the moment you have won he is going to claim Catholic conspiracy, a very convenient get-out as for the majority of christian history the Catholic church and Christianity were synonymous.
Evolution isn't actually a defeater to christianity, you might be thinking along the lines of atheistic evolution though, to which there isn't an overwhelming amount of evidence apart from what can be equally used to support theistic evolution. I also don't think God requires people to worship Him, it's just how He made us and I'm content to accept that rather than rant for no avail at a God who doesn't bow to peoples demands and give them an answer on the spot. As for thinking for oneself: God used a historical event to reveal Himself to humanity. That kind of implies that faith in Jesus is reasonable as well. The apostle Paul appeals to the historical event and validity of the resurrection for faith in Jesus, not just saying "you must believe and don't ask questions".Tranka Verrane said:
Neither do I hence I don't follow or support those kind of peopleTranka Verrane said:
Sorry, when I said murder I obviously meant more politically correct "execution of the unrighteous after grieveous sins against God." Next time when I speak of murder I will remember to use newspeak... Seriously, where is the fracking difference between those two?clint eastwood said:
There is none.
"Deuteronomy 20:10-14clint eastwood said:
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."
Oh wait sorry it wasn't rape but it was "spreading your blessed superior sperm to infidel objects that choose Devil over God" I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
So when people are forced to believe to God, its God's will?clint eastwood said:
Yes, instead we limit teenages ability to commit harm with spraypaint through restrictions or even ban the product. I'd say make religion something you can practice only as an adult so there will be less people who believe that horrendous crimes can be justified because bible = God said so.clint eastwood said:
I'm not sure what you mean by the terms atheistic and theistic evolution. If you mean directed evolution, I would agree that it is impossible to prove that mutations are completely random. Most Christians of the OP's ilk would dispute evolution at all, however (I already asked him whether he believed the Bible as literal fact). Where does it mention dinosaurs in the bible? And don't even think about mentioning the flood in this context, it doesn't match the evidence. Either the evidence was deliberately falsified by a mischevious God, or the creation myth is just that. Personally I have no problem with it being that, and don't find the existence of evolution as evidence against God, but it's the theists who choose to nail their colours to the mast on this one, not me.clint eastwood said:
Good for you. Neither do I, and in case anyone hasn't been following this, I am not an atheist. What I am is a sceptic.
The difference between murder and the God killing a sinner? Quite simply in that the sinner has committed a horrendous crime against a just God, and murder is unjustified killing. On the topic of rape, I can easily use your view of synonymity between words to say sex (consensual sex) is the same as rape.Dele said:
It is God's will in conversion so yes. Is that unjust? Well for starters God chooses unconditionally. And if you still think thats unjust, ask yourself if you would like to be forgiven and go to heaven to be with God for eternity. If so, repent. If not, then there isn't a problem for you because you don't seem to want it.
People have equally used atheism to cause horrendous crimes. The ideology of atheism has driven powers such as the soviet union for example. And with this, I bid you goodnight. Got an unnaturally early start tomorrow
By atheistic evolution I mean the evolution that is by complete random chance, world happened for no reason etc. The evolution for pop culture atheists such as richard dawkins and sam harris. And theistic evolution is directed evolution by a deity.Tranka Verrane said:
I don't really think that the bible would need to mention dinosaurs seeing as they are 60+ million years ago from the the earliest accounts of abraham's descendents. As for the flood, I would say to you that the flood wasn't local (which is a strongly held view among many evangelical scholars. But i told myself i'd grab some much needed sleep so sleep I will.
Who do you think Jesus is Tranka?
Slavery:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
My question is: I'm an atheist BECAUSE I've read the bible. Why let your life be ruled by bronze-age superstition?
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
My question is: I'm an atheist BECAUSE I've read the bible. Why let your life be ruled by bronze-age superstition?
No, he can't. God is like a Ouija board, you gotta believe it for it to work...
What he is doing here is just a snaky way to test the Escapist grounds for gullible people to convert.
What he is doing here is just a snaky way to test the Escapist grounds for gullible people to convert.
There's a lot of accusations against the Christian God going on here. It's interesting but - can someone tackle the real issue.
Why doesn't the Christian God exist?
Because I feel it is much greater leap of faith to believe that the universe came from nothing or that we are a product of chance - rather than believe we were created by a personal (directly involved with every single molecule of the universe) creator and sustainer.
Evolution proves to me that everything comes from a source - to suggest that we came ex nihilo (from nothing or no God = classic atheism) is far more anti-evolutionary than the Bible. It's far more logical to suggest that intelligent matter comes from a super-intelligent source, or that even physicality comes from a super-physical source - as opposed to ex nihilo, nothing.
The question of chance, a) doesnt answer the question of where do we come from and b) the idea of chaos and chance is completely at odds with the ordered universe bound by laws that we both understand and don't understand. Its obsolete and an infantile answer to the issue of existence. For existence, time to exist, there have to be universal, eternal constants.
Purely from logic the possibility of God is far greater than the possibility of no God.
But this can remain a hypothesis. You have to look at what you can percieve.
Again, for me it follows - if there is far greater possibility of a God existing, how then would I have certainty if he/she/it exists?
The hypothesis can raise interesting questions such as that because law relies on an enforcer, universal laws = universal enforcer.
However, this is abstract.
Humans though are inherently self-centred, so to be honest; abstract postulations are hardly ever going to be convincing.
Common statements like "If God exists, he would've made an impact on history" or, "If God exists why wouldn't he reveal himself to me" - these aren't convenient statements for arguments sake, I've personally heard them asked. It firstly reveals, the natural human impulse for self-centredness.
Someone pointed out earlier that if God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent - why should he give a stuff about humans?
There's the REAL issue.
It harks back to the first question, the possibility of a God/creator/source.
I would suggest, since the universe is ordered down to the very minute detail - cell structures etc. much further than humans will ever know - the source of life and existence is personal (directly involved with everything; laws...cell formations, evolution, gravity etc.) rather than an impersonal force or even cell-collision.
This would flip the question instead - "if God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, how could he NOT give a stuff about humans?"
After establishing that God is personal, it then follows - what is the relationship between God and man.
And again the previous questions, "If God exists, he would've made an impact on history" or, "If God exists why wouldn't he reveal himself to me" - there are two angle to approach these questions from the conclusion that God is personal.
Firstly, "If God exists, he would've made an impact on history"
Answer 1: existence itself is a fairly considerable impact.
Answer 2: Jesus. BC/AD = impact in history.
Secondly, "If God exists why wouldn't he reveal himself to me"
Answer 1: the body is sustained by the most intricate and complex of laws, enforced by the ultimate source of existence via evolution etc.
Answer 2: Jesus is a very historical figure who claimed "I AM GOD" and claimed that he would rise from the dead as proof - historically, it is impossible to disprove the resurrection (disregarding scientific hypotheses) - the evidence and the documents are there.
Regarding the relationship, I would suggest that rejecting the source of existence, reality and life logically results in the flipside. Put simpler, rejection of an infinite and eternal God must have infinite and eternal consequences - as decisions of any magnitude have consequences equal to their weight.
So narrowing down, if you want to disprove God.
Start from this end - disprove Jesus' resurrection (you won't be the first to try).
And secondly, disprove meaningful existence (i.e existence from a source and universal order).
Good luck then.
How does existence exist.
Why doesn't the Christian God exist?
Because I feel it is much greater leap of faith to believe that the universe came from nothing or that we are a product of chance - rather than believe we were created by a personal (directly involved with every single molecule of the universe) creator and sustainer.
Evolution proves to me that everything comes from a source - to suggest that we came ex nihilo (from nothing or no God = classic atheism) is far more anti-evolutionary than the Bible. It's far more logical to suggest that intelligent matter comes from a super-intelligent source, or that even physicality comes from a super-physical source - as opposed to ex nihilo, nothing.
The question of chance, a) doesnt answer the question of where do we come from and b) the idea of chaos and chance is completely at odds with the ordered universe bound by laws that we both understand and don't understand. Its obsolete and an infantile answer to the issue of existence. For existence, time to exist, there have to be universal, eternal constants.
Purely from logic the possibility of God is far greater than the possibility of no God.
But this can remain a hypothesis. You have to look at what you can percieve.
Again, for me it follows - if there is far greater possibility of a God existing, how then would I have certainty if he/she/it exists?
The hypothesis can raise interesting questions such as that because law relies on an enforcer, universal laws = universal enforcer.
However, this is abstract.
Humans though are inherently self-centred, so to be honest; abstract postulations are hardly ever going to be convincing.
Common statements like "If God exists, he would've made an impact on history" or, "If God exists why wouldn't he reveal himself to me" - these aren't convenient statements for arguments sake, I've personally heard them asked. It firstly reveals, the natural human impulse for self-centredness.
Someone pointed out earlier that if God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent - why should he give a stuff about humans?
There's the REAL issue.
It harks back to the first question, the possibility of a God/creator/source.
I would suggest, since the universe is ordered down to the very minute detail - cell structures etc. much further than humans will ever know - the source of life and existence is personal (directly involved with everything; laws...cell formations, evolution, gravity etc.) rather than an impersonal force or even cell-collision.
This would flip the question instead - "if God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, how could he NOT give a stuff about humans?"
After establishing that God is personal, it then follows - what is the relationship between God and man.
And again the previous questions, "If God exists, he would've made an impact on history" or, "If God exists why wouldn't he reveal himself to me" - there are two angle to approach these questions from the conclusion that God is personal.
Firstly, "If God exists, he would've made an impact on history"
Answer 1: existence itself is a fairly considerable impact.
Answer 2: Jesus. BC/AD = impact in history.
Secondly, "If God exists why wouldn't he reveal himself to me"
Answer 1: the body is sustained by the most intricate and complex of laws, enforced by the ultimate source of existence via evolution etc.
Answer 2: Jesus is a very historical figure who claimed "I AM GOD" and claimed that he would rise from the dead as proof - historically, it is impossible to disprove the resurrection (disregarding scientific hypotheses) - the evidence and the documents are there.
Regarding the relationship, I would suggest that rejecting the source of existence, reality and life logically results in the flipside. Put simpler, rejection of an infinite and eternal God must have infinite and eternal consequences - as decisions of any magnitude have consequences equal to their weight.
So narrowing down, if you want to disprove God.
Start from this end - disprove Jesus' resurrection (you won't be the first to try).
And secondly, disprove meaningful existence (i.e existence from a source and universal order).
Good luck then.
How does existence exist.
well, i don't think that, if god is real and is who the bible says he is, it would matter to him if we have awe or not.clint eastwood said:
Also, regardlesss of why god was gona kill moses, when his ife circumcised their son, god was pleased and left. Wasupwidat?
No question is too personal. i don't believe in jesus simply because i have no reason to. There is no concrete evidence for the existence of even a historical person Jesus.
And i just can't believe that someone can do magic tricksd like turning water into wine and make more fish and he should be worshipped.
If you can provide the passage numbers, I can see for myself.EnglishMuffin said:
EDIT: Also, despite your invitation to flame, I'm not down for shouting matches.
Wow again. Weakest. Argument. Ever. Think about what you are saying. It's more logical to suggest the universe was created by some deity than came from nothing because nothing can come from nothing. Er, so where did the deity come from? There are philosophical problems associated with the beginning of time but the addition of a deity doesn't solve any of them.jordan. said:
The creation story doesn't mention dinosaurs, which is why I mentioned them. And most evangelical scholars hold the world to be about, what, 60 thousand years old? And did you mean that the flood was local?clint eastwood said:
Jesus was a historical character who gave rise to the current Christian religion. He was prepared to defend to the death his right to say what he believed. His opinions on almost everything were strongly moral, sensible and profoundly beneficial to a society. That much I'm fairly certain of. As for things I think probable about Jesus:
He was probably used to coalesce various myths about a prophet from the region, as there are no contemporary primary or even secondary accounts of his life.
He was probably someone who already commanded respect before he began being seen as a religious figure, possibly a minor revolutionary leader or a physician.
He probably didn't see himself as the son of God, but did have a revalation about the way we should treat each other, and had opinions on how we should deal with God.
He almost certainly believed in God himself, as everyone did, but he was prepared to publicly question religion, despite knowing the trouble it would get him into.
That there are masses of important information we do not and probably never will know.
That the selective quotation of this great man has been used to coerce the weak into allowing themselves to be shepherded and herded into a situation where they are supposed to be content with having nothing while lords and masters revel in excess for hundred of years.
That Jesus would be, or possibly even is, horrified at the opinions and actions that are committed in his name daily (and equally, delighted by others, though that is in the minority).