Atheists, do you hope you're right?

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Atheists judge 'Christ' by people who are not living out the faith.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

That question doesn't make any sense to me. 'Christ' is a way of being, not a religious dogma. I trust in that way of being. I don't much care about the religious dogma associated with it. Some people care about the religious dogma, and that's OK if it works for them. It doesn't work for me that way.
Actually, what we want it to be is also a part of what it is. That's how faith becomes actualized.

I'm confused. You don't want to have fellowship with the Holy Spirit, and you don't believe in anything Jesus said? How is the way of being actualized then? So God doesn't determine objective reality?

 

[PureX]

I'm confused. You don't want to have fellowship with the Holy Spirit, ...

The "holy spirit" is the spirit of God that exists within us as part of God's creation (God expressing God's self). I don't "have fellowship" with it, because it's already a part of me. I can manifest (embody) the spirit of God, as a human being, and I believe doing so is partly why I exist. So I want to encourage this aspect of myself, in myself.

We don't 'disagree', I just view it differently than you do.

… and you don't believe in anything Jesus said?

I believe lots of things "Jesus said", but not because Jesus said them. Jesus is a character in a religious story, intended to convey an idea to us. I believe the idea is valid because I have found that it works in my own life.

How is the way of being actualized then? So God doesn't determine objective reality?

God determines both objective and subjective reality through us. Creation didn't stop with the 'Big Bang' ("let there be light"), it started with it. And it's been a continuing process ever since. Everything that is, is God expressing God's 'self' (through the creative act of being/becoming). Including us. Including our thoughts and desires and behaviors.

 

[noguru]

When someone testifies. It is either believed or it isn't. Im testifying to His real love and presence. You don't believe me. Just like many did not believe the testimony of Jesus's disciples who say they witnessed the resurected Jesus with their eyes. So they were either crazy, liars or truthful. You've made the same choice about my testimony. Because you don't believe it does not mean it is not evidence of the truth. Personal love of God through Jesus whose truth is self evident as the creator is not like any other religion. The choice is yours to seek and find or wait until you face Him at the end when it is too late. May His Grace find you!

Some Christians claim that if Jesus was not physically resurrected then our faith is in vain. And that resurrection is then evidence that we will all be resurrected in that same way. I do not agree with that. My faith has always been in what Jesus ministered about in this life, and how it is an effective way to bring positive change and enlightenment. I do not need certainty about a proposed afterlife to see the value Jesus ministry offers in the here and now. Those people who think Christianity with no resurrection is worthless, cannot/do not speak for me on that matter.

His grace is in the here and the now. If it continues for me in some manner after my death, then that is good. But I do not require that. And I certainly will not use the hope for that to blind myself from the reality of the here and now.

 

[Hedshaker]

When someone testifies. It is either believed or it isn't. Im testifying to His real love and presence. You don't believe me. Just like many did not believe the testimony of Jesus's disciples who say they witnessed the resurected Jesus with their eyes. So they were either crazy, liars or truthful.

Or maybe stories written by anonymous authors and compiled by a canon with an agenda should be treated with scepticism first. You would know this if you had the guts to take a critical look into the origins of your magic book.

You've made the same choice about my testimony. Because you don't believe it does not mean it is not evidence of the truth.

Nor does your preaching make it evidence of the Truth tm either, just because you believe it by faith. Without hard (extra Biblical) evidence your testimony should be taken with a pinch of salt. If you were really interested in genuine truth you would critically examine the origins of the texts you so rely on. What are you afraid of? Biblical Criticism It won't go away.

Personal love of God through Jesus whose truth is self evident as the creator is not like any other religion.

Just declaring something true because you wish it does not make it so. And no, your religion is not unique amongst competing religions. Had you been born in Pakistan you would be saying the same about Islam, as do fundamentalist Muslims across the planet. Without hard (extra Biblical) evidence your testimony is no better than theirs.

The choice is yours to seek and find or wait until you face Him at the end when it is too late. May His Grace find you!

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - Christopher Hitchens. I am not deterred from seeking genuine truth by thinly disguised threats so don't wast your time.

 

[alwight]

I am saying, "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." 1 John 4:8
And just because someone claims to be a Christ follower or Christian, does not mean they are.

Only the true Christian would put salt on his/her porridge.

 

[Tyrathca]

I am saying, "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." 1 John 4:8
And just because someone claims to be a Christ follower or Christian, does not mean they are.

How small a number of Christians are true Christians in your opinion then? What about if you exclude those who don't regularly go to church? Because unless you're claiming a really small number you should still expect to find a subgroup with a large affect if your good is as potent in people's lives as you claim.

More likely you are simply experiencing confirmation bias, when things go well people attribute it to God but when it doesn't no one notices.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

The "holy spirit" is the spirit of God that exists within us as part of God's creation (God expressing God's self). I don't "have fellowship" with it, because it's already a part of me. I can manifest (embody) the spirit of God, as a human being, and I believe doing so is partly why I exist. So I want to encourage this aspect of myself, in myself.

We don't 'disagree', I just view it differently than you do.
I believe lots of things "Jesus said", but not because Jesus said them. Jesus is a character in a religious story, intended to convey an idea to us. I believe the idea is valid because I have found that it works in my own life.
God determines both objective and subjective reality through us. Creation didn't stop with the 'Big Bang' ("let there be light"), it started with it. And it's been a continuing process ever since. Everything that is, is God expressing God's 'self' (through the creative act of being/becoming). Including us. Including our thoughts and desires and behaviors.

"and in Him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17
He is the power source of every atom and He holds every atom together. That is irrespective of being washed through the blood of Christ, reconciled through faith into the love relationship God desires, with the gift of the Holy Spirit filling us through our surrender, humility, love and devotion to Our Father and His Son Jesus. His Spirit brings His fruit of goodness, peace and love. My experience of God confirms what His word says. His word did not create a fantastical dream for me to pretend. You have free will, you can disagree, you can call me crazy, but I am thoroughly convinced He wants a very close love relationship with you and everyone else. And I am also convinced He does not force this. I also understand I can not truly convince anyone, the Holy Spirit attempts to do that in the hearts of men. It's your choice.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Some Christians claim that if Jesus was not physically resurrected then our faith is in vain. And that resurrection is then evidence that we will all be resurrected in that same way. I do not agree with that. My faith has always been in what Jesus ministered about in this life, and how it is an effective way to bring positive change and enlightenment. I do not need certainty about a proposed afterlife to see the value Jesus ministry offers in the here and now. Those people who think Christianity with no resurrection is worthless, cannot/do not speak for me on that matter.

His grace is in the here and the now. If it continues for me in some manner after my death, then that is good. But I do not require that. And I certainly will not use the hope for that to blind myself from the reality of the here and now.

To be totally honest, I do not doubt the afterlife. But God's word says it's unfathomable to us and I totally agree.

BTW I don't adhere to guaranteed salvation thoughts. Working out salvation, does not offer guarantees.

None the less. The here and now is an extremely dark place, and my life before Christ was no exception. I do try to focus on His kingdom in me and His body, right now and the positives of His light, love, peace. May His light, love, Grace and peace be with you!

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Or maybe stories written by anonymous authors and compiled by a canon with an agenda should be treated with scepticism first. You would know this if you had the guts to take a critical look into the origins of your magic book.



Nor does your preaching make it evidence of the Truth tm either, just because you believe it by faith. Without hard (extra Biblical) evidence your testimony should be taken with a pinch of salt. If you were really interested in genuine truth you would critically examine the origins of the texts you so rely on. What are you afraid of? Biblical Criticism It won't go away.



Just declaring something true because you wish it does not make it so. And no, your religion is not unique amongst competing religions. Had you been born in Pakistan you would be saying the same about Islam, as do fundamentalist Muslims across the planet. Without hard (extra Biblical) evidence your testimony is no better than theirs.



That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - Christopher Hitchens. I am not deterred from seeking genuine truth by thinly disguised threats so don't wast your time.

There are plenty of evidentiary proofs of the bibles Historicity, including manuscripts from the 1 century. Other Historical documents don't have age or number of documents yet are more widely accepted. Predjudice no doubt.

Islam does not have the same witnessed accounts, nor message of love and Grace.

You ignore the fact that witness testimony is evidence. That is a fact.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Only the true Christian would put salt on his/her porridge.

Funny that you would say that.
"Let your speech always be gracious seasoned with salt." Colossians 4:6

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

How small a number of Christians are true Christians in your opinion then? What about if you exclude those who don't regularly go to church? Because unless you're claiming a really small number you should still expect to find a subgroup with a large affect if your good is as potent in people's lives as you claim.

More likely you are simply experiencing confirmation bias, when things go well people attribute it to God but when it doesn't no one notices.

Jesus said the path is narrow and only a few will it.
I don't judge. Only God knows the secrets of men's hearts.

 

[Hedshaker]

There are plenty of evidentiary proofs of the bibles Historicity, including manuscripts from the 1 century. Other Historical documents don't have age or number of documents yet are more widely accepted. Predjudice no doubt.

There is no extra Biblical, contemporary evidence to corroborate the extraordinary stories in the Bible, including the alleged resurrection. Nor is there any "contemporary" evidence for Jesus as an historical figure outside of the Bible. It was all written decades after the alleged events by anonymous authors. You would know this if you had the guts to critically study your magic book

Islam does not have the same witnessed accounts, nor message of love and Grace.

I suspect you know very little about Islam. Maybe you should take it up with them since they believe it is they who have the true religion and yours that is at fault.

You ignore the fact that witness testimony is evidence. That is a fact.

Religious preaching is unreliable testimony so your alleged fact is in error.

Are you familiar with the term Religious Psychosis?

We all hold beliefs that are not provable, and defining when these beliefs cross the line and become psychotic delusions is not easy. It’s clear that such a line does exist, however: every town has its share of people whose religious beliefs fall sufficiently far outside the conventional that they are declared psychotic - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphe...ents-with-religious.html#sthash.7oJYqoTN.dpuf

 

[Hawkins]

There is no extra Biblical, contemporary evidence to corroborate the extraordinary stories in the Bible, including the alleged resurrection. Nor is there any "contemporary" evidence for Jesus as an historical figure outside of the Bible. It was all written decades after the alleged events by anonymous authors. You would know this if you had the guts to critically study your magic book

Scholars usually considered Jesus is a historical figure as mentioned by Josephus Flavius.

Human history as whole has no evidence. It's a kind of truth can only be reached by witnessing. For an example, no one knows what George Washington was doing on Jan 01, 1740. No human can access such a kind of truths unless another human wrote it down in a document called history books. Even when it is written down, you need faith to choose to believe it or not.

The very nature of history (as a kind of truth) is that , it cannot be evidenced. The more distant history is the more it is so.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

There is no extra Biblical, contemporary evidence to corroborate the extraordinary stories in the Bible, including the alleged resurrection. Nor is there any "contemporary" evidence for Jesus as an historical figure outside of the Bible. It was all written decades after the alleged events by anonymous authors. You would know this if you had the guts to critically study your magic book



I suspect you know very little about Islam. Maybe you should take it up with them since they believe it is they who have the true religion and yours that is at fault.




Religious preaching is unreliable testimony so your alleged fact is in error.

Are you familiar with the term Religious Psychosis?

You twist the facts to your own agenda, prejudice. Bible authorship has been intensely scrutinized and very few books have any question to the authorship.

As a hypothetical; if the supernatural existed and was beyond scientific proof that you clamor for. It would thus be unprovable and also it could not be proven that it doesn't exist, hence atheism is based on no proof. You can't prove the supernatural doesn't exist as much as you don't want it too.

The only evidence could be people's experiences with it, or not with it. You won't even consider that because you don't want it to exist.

 

[Hedshaker]

Scholars usually considered Jesus is a historical figure as mentioned by Josephus Flavius.

Flavius was not a contemporary. Scholars may considered whatever they wish. Extra Biblical, contemporary evidence is something else.

Human history as whole has no evidence. It's a kind of truth can only be reached by witnessing. For an example, no one knows what George Washington was doing on Jan 01, 1740. No human can access such a kind of truths unless another human wrote it down in a document called history books. Even when it is written down, you need faith to choose to believe it or not

.

Heard it all before. There is tons of contemporary evidence from an array of sources for George Washington.

The very nature of history (as a kind of truth) is that , it cannot be evidenced. The more distant history is the more it is so.

Then scepticism is reasonable where extraordinary claims are made.

 

[Hawkins]

Flavius was not a contemporary. Scholars may considered whatever they wish. Extra Biblical evidence is something else.

How come a contemporary person be more accurate than the one close to that period of time?

Heard it all before. There is tons of contemporary evidence from an a array of sources for George Washington.

No, no one can be more specific on what he's doing on Jan 01, 1470. If on the other hand history can be evidenced, you can always tell what he's doing on that day without referencing to any history books.

Moreover, can you name one of these so-called evidence?

Then scepticism is reasonable where extraordinary claims are made.

On the other hand, if what is said in the Bible is true, what else can be done for this truth to be conveyed?

 

[Tyrathca]

Scholars usually considered Jesus is a historical figure as mentioned by Josephus Flavius.

when is Jesus thought to have died and when is Flavius thought to been born? I think you'll notice a problem.

For an example, no one knows what George Washington was doing on Jan 01, 1740.

Fortunately then that no one is claiming to know not just what happened but also that it defied known science and we should base or lives, philosophy and beliefs about everything on this claim... Oh wait, that's Christianity (among others)

No human can access such a kind of truths unless another human wrote it down in a document called history books. Even when it is written down, you need faith to choose to believe it or not.

That is not only false but watering down the word faith to include basically everything other than a few reliably reproducible personal experiences. Just labelling something faith is not an argument, particularly when it involves bastardising the standard original usage.

The very nature of history (as a kind of truth) is that , it cannot be evidenced. The more distant history is the more it is so.

On the contrary if a day of battle is claimed to have occurred we can go look for its remnants on the field, corroborate with independent sources, infer from indirect impact on other events etc. Even then we generally have valuing degrees of confidence that either the event happened or it happened as described. Also these events all obey known science, no claims of Caesar raining the thunderbolts of Zeus on his enemies for example.

Christianity on the other hand does not even achieve much if any of this level of evidence yet then expects is to believe that events defied physics and we should base our lives around its lessons (no matter how stupid some sound). Do you see why your comparison with "normal" history is flawed?

 

[Hedshaker]

You twist the facts to your own agenda, prejudice. Bible authorship has been intensely scrutinized and very few books have any question to the authorship.

How do you know if you haven't conducted your own critical examination?

Biblical Criticism

Biblical criticism is an umbrella term covering various techniques for applying literary historical-critical methods in analyzing and studying the Bible and its textual content.

As a hypothetical; if the supernatural existed and was beyond scientific proof that you clamor for. It would thus be unprovable and also it could not be proven that it doesn't exist, hence atheism is based on no proof. You can't prove the supernatural doesn't exist as much as you don't want it too.

Then scepticism is reasonable where extraordinary claims are proposed.

The only evidence could be people's experiences with it, or not with it. You won't even consider that because you don't want it to exist.

And now you attack the person because your cherished beliefs are questioned. I shouldn't blame you really since you have no evidence for the actual arguments. None of this has anything to do with "what I want" nor can you show it as such.

 

[Hawkins]

when is Jesus thought to have died and when is Flavius thought to been born? I think you'll notice a problem.

Would you name me a history which doesn't have such a problem? History as a kind of truth all have such a problem one way or another. So? Humans have no history, or history contains no truth?

It seems that you miss the whole point arguing that way.