You are a false teacher and a blind guide. Your theology is closer to Catholic than it is Protestant. It is very apparent that you believe little to nothing that Paul says. Paul says that we are justified by faith not works, Romans 5:1. You are in conflict with much of the Bible.
Why the Religious Will Perish with the Unbelievers
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
You are a false teacher and a blind guide. Your theology is closer to Catholic than it is Protestant. It is very apparent that you believe little to nothing that Paul says. Paul says that we are justified by faith not works, Romans 5:1. You are in conflict with much of the Bible.
Brother Ducky
New member
Well, if you do not like organized religion you certainly could try my church.
Anyhoo, it should be noted that Paul started organized churches
He taught and encouraged Timothy to build organized churches.
He taught and encouraged Titus to build organized churched.
And the author of Hebrews [which many consider to be Paul] in Heb. 10:24-25 encougages the meeting together of believers.
Believe Paul or believe Pate. Hmmmm. Answer seems easy enough!
jsanford108
New member
I will not be telling you that you need a savior. I would have to first convince you in the existence of God, the credibility of the Bible, etc. before such brazen an argument could be made. Plus, I never utilize the cliche phrases of evangelicals.
Christianity cannot be logical, if the foundation upon which it is built is faulty or false. You begin this point with a very logical approach, but close it with very subjective conclusions. How can any ideology be "perfectly logical," yet have knowledge in support of "crazy ideas" and encouragements? Either Christianity is logical or it is illogical.
I apologize. I was assuming that your reasons were all directed at Christianity and its principles, in response to my inquiry.
First, if we are applying empirical evidence as logical proofs for existence, then ideas of Christ being God are equal to that of Science being Real. What is Science? Can you provide empirical data that explains what Science is? Of course not. Because Science is abstract. As is Mathematics. As is Philosophy. As is Logic, itself. You accept abstract ideas as facts, not because they are empirically represented, but because they are logical.
You also keep throwing bits of phrase out making allusions to Christ being just another Mesopotamian god-man religious figure. This is in opposition to considerable historical evidence. This is a theory that, as Lon I believe pointed out, many atheists reject, as it has no grounds or base of evidence. If you are one of the fringe atheists who ascribe to this theory, then I would suggest researching it a little more. Many renowned atheists reject this myth.
Again, if using probability, compare the total number of archaic people who believed in a deity vs those who did not. Overwhelmingly, there is a higher support in favor of some sort of Higher Power, be it monotheistic or polytheistic. Then, compare total religions of monotheism to atheism. Again, if you submit probability as a logical point, then monotheism again is more probable, based on existing numbers of accounts, than no god.
You are being disingenuous. You know that water/food/shelter/etc are all physical requirements necessary for life. Emotional needs are not necessary for life. My previous point stands true, as your listing of historical knowledge and belief in a savior God being incomparable with physical need. A lack of belief or even knowledge of such a deity does not negate one's ability to survive. However, lack of food/shelter/water/etc does. Physical needs sustain life. Therefore, classifying them alongside historical knowledge is illogical. To suggest there is logic therein is either ignorance, or denial.
You can assume that I believe that Christ walked post execution, as I do believe that. However, you are dismissing this event. Why? As stated before, hundreds testified to seeing Him, even ones who maintained it was impossible since He was dead. As I stated; both religious and secular sources bear the same accounts and logging of numbers.
If you heard that Prince Charles lost an arm, had seen evidence of it, you would accept it as fact, no? But what would you believe if you then heard hundreds of accounts of him having grown it back? You would wish to have some kind of skeptic prove it, no? And what if the skeptic came back with claims of seeing this "miracle," as well as bearing the same testimonies of the hundreds who likewise insisted in such biological impossibility? This is what you get when you research the historical accounts surrounding the resurrected Christ.
But alas, it becomes easier once one proves the historical reliability of the Bible.
Was your claim not that there are biological impossibilities that one must believe to be Christian, such as resurrection of bodies, healing of blind, etc? If I am wrong, please correct me.
I would say this is incorrect. Historical accuracy is how facts and accurate accounts are generated. If a historical account says that Rasputin was stabbed, poisoned, beaten, and shot, witnessed by credible sources, is that not likely the case? Was he some black magician? I wouldn't think so, but the credible sources, substantiated by witness testimony, and confirmed with examination do point to all of these attempts at Rasputin having occurred within a brief time frame. Do I immediately say it is some bit of supernatural work? No. But can we not begin with at least a skeptical approach, examining facts and credible accounts, to the Bible, following the truth wherever it leads?
You are denying historically proved facts, at this point. For example, there were two different king Herod's listed in the Gospels. What do you make of letters written by Romans who were stationed in the area, commenting on how these crazy followers of a man were going around saying he had risen from the dead? What about letters written in Rome that bear the same comments, remarking about how Romans stationed in the Hebrew area needed to keep the followers of this "risen man" in line?
Again, you are ignoring archaeological evidence, as well as other historical sources, which sustain the claims of the Hebrew exodus, conquests of the Hebrews, as well as Christ being in Jerusalem. Again, many atheist scholars admit that the historical accuracy of these events, as mere historical accounts absent of supernatural intervention, is credible, as well as factual. These scholars conclude that these are historical fact, as evidence by archaeology and various other historical sources.
In closing, if you simply dismiss evidence that is devastating to your beliefs, then you are preferring ignorance to fact and logic. One should pursue truth, with skepticism and belief, no matter where it leads.
God's Truth
New member
The works that Paul says that do not justify are the ceremonial/purification works.
The purpose of the early church was to preach the Gospel. The apostles were trying to fulfill Jesus's commandment to go into all of the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, Mark 16:15.
You will not hear the "Historical Gospel" of Jesus Christ preached in todays organized church. The Gospel and organized religion are not compatible, never have been, never will be.
That is not true, but that is what you like to believe. Works of the law are any religious thing that you do.
Yes, it does seem that Saul of Tarsus couldn't decide whether your god was an author of confusion or not. Compare 1 Corinthians 14:33.
The reason people go to see magicians is because they know it is an illusion. If they thought magic was real, they wouldn't find any entertainment value in it. But fiction has nothing to do with my point.
The scientific dates aren't illusion, they are provisional knowledge, subject to change due to further evidence coming to light. Every measurement has an uncertainty associated with it but perhaps PBS popular science shows are not the best means by which to understand this.
Can I take it you appreciate that if you look up the age of the earth in the Holy Wikipedia, it says 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years, meaning the earth is somewhere between 4,490,000,000 years and 4,590,000,000 years old? That doesn't mean a scientist wouldn't give a lecture during which the 4.5 billion years old figure was quoted. People in that audience might already know how science comes up with that figure, and what uncertainties and errors are associated with it.
Stuu: I suggest your [assumptions] are: 1. You exist; 2. What you observe is not an illusion (although perhaps you disagree); 3. There is a being that created the universe; 4. It is possible for humans to know what this being wants them to do.
I maintain they have to be separate categories. A deist would argue very strongly that he only needs 3, not 4, and 4 is not an automatic consequence of 3. I don't know how the logic of your last statement works.
Well, since you can't come up with a single example of your libel I will accept that as a tacet withdrawal and apology. Like the apologists of the Catholic church, you have a funny way of saying sorry.
Please link to where I have said that the unpleasant character of your god is a reason to think it doesn't exist, or again, withdraw the libel. I really think you should try reading what I have written before becoming a critic.
You might even enjoy the posturing and arrogance of the atheist and the spiritual blindness.
Although religions, especially islam, cause their followers to make the religion into the same thing as the follower's identity, nevertheless we should all play the ball not the man. The only people I call liar are 'public' creationists, and that is not people on ToL.
I take the credit for what appears beside my name, and I am solely responsible for any mistakes. Of course there is a heck of a lot of thinking of many capable and pioneering people, and a great deal of painstaking scientific work done by phenomenally dedicated people, whose work I merely quote when I write. I have pioneered very little. They deserve the credit for their work.
Is that a personal threat, or a threat that you will be rhetorically brilliant? If the latter then I look forward to you writing good arguments in response.
Stuart
God's Truth
New member
Works of the law that JUSTIFIED and SANCTIFIED and PURIFIED are the ceremonial/purification works. They are called purification works for a reason.
Shall we take Assumption Number 3: there is a being that created the universe? If that assumption is correct then there is sound logic in forming a system of belief that fears that power and might try to get into its good books. Those are both key themes in the Judeo-christian scriptures.
It is possible to build a completely logical conclusion from incorrect assumptions, and so come up with a wrong answer. That is why the scientific method, which is logic applied to empirical evidence, generates the highest quality of information, and other methods like historical analysis use something similar.
In science you use your past observations to make a testable hypothesis, and then look for evidence that disproves the hypothesis. After some time of trying different experiments to disprove, the surviving hypothesis becomes well-respected enough to be called a theory. The only place of logic is to draw the conclusions that formulate new experiments designed to disprove.
Even though the Latin root of the word science means 'to know', actually that only refers to the body of provisional knowledge acquired through the scientific method. Really, science is a verb that indicates following the set of principles as I outlined above.
As you are suggesting, there are many claims made connecting the mythology of Jesus with other religious mythologies. There are those who claim perfect sets of parallel events between the stories, for example closely comparing Mithras and Jesus, and that gives rise to much argument. I'm not that convinced by the conspiracy theory level of this, I find it more interesting to consider the common themes and what they might say about human psychology.
You have elements such as torture and death of a man-god; dying and rising gods; virgin birth; and 25th December as a date with some resonance for different reasons. So I would accept the criticism regarding my use of 'just another', and maybe offer instead that the mythology of Jesus is a different combination of the same old man-god story elements, many of which are Mesopotamian, but not exclusively. Everywhere from Rome, through Greece and Egypt to further East stories with these same elements have arisen time and again.
Ok, but this is a new topic though.
So you can conclude what? That if you pick a random human from, say, the past 3000 years, there is a better than even chance that person will carry the delusions of monotheism?
I think you are being disingenuous by not addressing my question, and by persisting with the strawman argument that knowing about a religious salvation mythology can be called 'historical knowledge'. As you will appreciate, and can read from my other statements, I don't accept that there is anything historical at all about a man being a saviour. It is a con, one of the biggest ever perpetrated on humanity.
And there is not one eyewitness account of Jesus in existence. No one who ever saw Jesus wrote about it, as far as we can tell. All you have is hearsay, at best. That is all scholars have to go on when they conclude, on balance of probability that Jesus existed and was executed by the Romans. There is some support for his baptism as well. And that's it, circumstance and hearsay. And it is easy to establish that much of the gospel writing is made up, as I explained earlier.
Historical fiction, remember? The fallacy of composition, remember?
You replied to my statement that there were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus with the claim that many witnessed him. They are far from being the same thing.
In the case of Rasputin, there are eyewitness accounts, in the case of Jesus there aren't. You must also be skeptical about eyewitness accounts. If you haven't seen it before, I recommend the selective attention test.
What is your point about the two Herods? Exactly what Roman letters are you describing? Do you mean Josephus? Who?
Regarding the alleged exodus, who would gain the most from finding the evidence for the exodus? You might think it would be the Israeli government, wouldn't you. What could be more useful than digging up the title deeds for the state of Israel? Well, as it turns out, it was archeologists at Tel Aviv university who did the work, and despite a pretty exhaustive effort, they demonstrated that the expected evidence from that many people living in that bit of desert for that length of time, is non-existent. They had the most to gain, and they say it's not real. The archaeology of the exodus has been going on for more than a century. Nothing!
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Stuart
So, what you have proven here is that neither one of you has faith.
beloved57
Well-known member
U don't believe Rom 5:10 Those Christ died for were reconciled to God by Christ death while they were enemies hating God!
beloved57
Well-known member
You believe that sinners Christ died for are still lost and condemned, that is unbelief!
God's Truth
New member
The Gentiles were enemies because they wouldn't come into the covenant with God and get circumcised.
Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
Ephesians 2:11 Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision (that done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
God's Truth
New member
I believe in everything that Jesus says, not just that we have to believe.
I believe we have to humble ourselves, repent o our sins, and everything else.
beloved57
Well-known member
So you deny the truth! Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies hating God Rom 5:10
I believe in everything that the Bible says. You can't say that can you? You appear to be anti-Paul.
There is only one law, God's Law. It covers every aspect of one's life. You, like the Pharisees, like to nit pick it.
God's Truth
New member
So you deny the truth! Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies hating God Rom 5:10.
God does not save those who hate Him.