bearofthunder

Paul was a traveling preacher/student of Judaism who lived on money from a patroness. Philippians 3:6 was likely more of a statement of his former devotion to Judaism. He could have persecuted Christians, but certainly not to the extent as to effect a large number of people, as he was not an important person in any way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the four writers of the gospel all died natural deaths, and the information about certain apostles being imprisoned, mistreated, and dying unusual deaths came only from later Christian writers who heard "stories" that were past down. Jesus' death was the only one confirmed by outside sources during his own time. This is why most encyclopedias/sources of information directly go into Jesus' death, but descriptions of the supposed persecution and crufixions of the disciples are usually preceded by the phrase "later tradition states that..." You know, I would REALLY appreciate it if you would stop making guesses and start putting down some actual FACTS. Facts are nice. 11/12 disciples died terrible deaths. Now that you know how they all died, except for John who was exiled on the Island of Patmos. He died a natural death which was pretty terrible in and of itself. Variations of phrase before descriptions of imprisonments and deaths in every one of the twelve wikipedia apostle entries: etc. Note that these phrases are not found in the deaths of non-religious figures from the same time period. You know this how? Please stop making comments without any proof to back them up. I already said I was wrong about that. A unicorn does not exist because it was not created by god. That is the only comprehension needed of the phrase "non-existence". not created. Nothingness does not go beyond those two words. You do not question the non-existence of a unicorn because it was not created to be a living being. Similarly, if I were not created, you would not question my non-existence. What made matter? But, besides, I don't have to think up a question to prove God exists whether or not I believe it to be true. By the definition of God, He exists outside of one's belief of Him. He has certain traits which are given to God and to no other being in the world. It's a part of Him. I have already addressed the "what made matter" question at the bottom of my previous post. You are free to believe in god in the way you just described. However, unless you decide to think of a question like I asked of you in the previous post, do not compare god to a natural law like gravity. I am speaking of blatant intrusions like intelligent design, which are very much detected by scientific instruments. I have never said that god's continual presence is not a possibility, which is what you are accusing me of.

and Your statements show that I was wrong about Christian persecution beginning in the second century instead of the first. However' date=' neither of your posts relate to the original apostles (a.k.a. "eyewitnesses") themselves. The key point is that none of the four gospel writers suffered from harm, and descriptions of the one or two other apostles who died unnatural deaths came only from later writers and are not supported by outside records. Hence, the original apostles had no motivation to stop their false tale. Their claim is, as I previously said, as invalid as those of a group of four modern day people who claim their friend walks on water. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I can comprehend nothingness quite easily. If god did not create me, would I exist? That's the kind of non-existence I'm talking about - not having been created by god when he made the world. It's the same kind of non-existence as that of a Thiljmanik. What's a Thiljmanik? It doesn't exist. It wasn't created by god when he made the world. Hence, the Thiljmanik is nonexistent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The scripture is a written text. I once again refer back to something you said that you keep failing to address: is what I wished for you to understand all along - that you cannot prove whether any religion is the absolute truth. There is no way to determine whether: -Vedas subverted the Bible or -Bible subverted the Vedas. Either one could be right. Therefore, you cannot claim that Christianity is the absolute truth, or that Hinduism is the absolute truth, and so on. If you like, you may substitute the word "Bible" with the word "scripture" : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Things fall down when I drop them. Even if Newton hadn't existed, even if no experiments had been conducted, that previous sentence is why "gravity exists whether or not I believe it to be true." I would like you to come up with that same kind of sentence for god. Without it, one cannot say "god exists whether or not I believe it to be true." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read over the questions you posted again. They have just as little to do with "where anything from the beginning came from" as with evolution. If they were about either of those topics, then you would be right. However, they are not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only valid claim evangelists can make, as I have said repeatedly, is: god caused the big bang. That should satisfy any religion, since if god started the universe, then he is the creator of everything, as you say. However, evangelists refuse to accept this and have continuously pushed the supernatural further into the earth's timeline and its properties. The argument of god inserted into anything after is easily disproved That is why religion is criticized. Not because they seek to prove god as the original source, but because they claim his direct involvement in biological events and systems after the source event.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the four writers of the gospel all died natural deaths, and the information about certain apostles being imprisoned, mistreated, and dying unusual deaths came only from later Christian writers who heard "stories" that were past down. Jesus' death was the only one confirmed by outside sources during his own time. This is why most encyclopedias/sources of information directly go into Jesus' death, but descriptions of the supposed persecution and crufixions of the disciples are usually preceded by the phrase "later tradition states that..." I'm pretty sure that Christianity started becoming prominent enough to be discrimnated against in the second century (long after all of the apostles had died), as that is when outside/neutral accounts of persecutions against Christians began to be written.

And in the Bible, eyewitnesses lied so that they could get tortured, burned at the stake, and killed? Give me a break... I think he meant those as two examples of why people lie, not as the sole reasons why they do so. All we know is that five people claim they witnessed Jesus perform supernatural acts. If five people in today's world said they saw their friend walk on water, they would be just as doubted.

Eh, this may sound stupid, but you've never been to hell. Fire and brimstone are symbolic words used in Revelation - hell is basically the lack of God's presence, which is exactly what you want if you choose "not God" in your life here on Earth. Why should God send you to heaven, if you don't want to believe in Him or be in His presence? It seems that by sending you to hell, God is giving you exactly what you want. You have the wrong interpretation of the word "non-existence." We were not discussing hell. I was talking about non-existence as in not having been created. This extension into a discussion on non-existence was in reference to Atralinre's post: In other words, he was saying that experiencing life is enough compensation for someone who will have to spend eternity in hell. I would choose the latter. I disagree with Astralinre's claim that experiencing life is worth an eternity of damnation. I would rather not have been created at all. In other words, I would rather that god had spared me by not creating me during creation and left me non-existent. And I ask you again, what is the your system of "absolute truth morality?" (truth and morality are both nouns, by the way) Let me remind you that - It cannot be science, as you said and - It cannot be religion, as you helped me explain: is what I wished for you to understand all along - that you cannot prove whether any religion is the absolute truth. There is no way to determine whether: -Vedas subverted the Bible or -Bible subverted the Vedas. Either one could be right. Therefore, you cannot claim that Christianity is the absolute truth, or that Hinduism is the absolute truth, and so on. Since "absolute truth morality" is neither religion nor science, what is it?

I was showing you that I don't need to be omniscient (see very bottom) to know what non-existence feels like. To reiterate my previous post, non-existence feels like nothing because it's non-existence. your original post:

I don't think you read through my post. In it, I agreed with you completely. I can no longer accuse god of being hypocritical because your quote from the bible shows me that his actions of bringing bringing non-believers to earth in order to punish them and show believers how fortunate they are match up with his holy text. Before, I said that Christianity doesn't support the part I underlined, but because of your bible quote, I admit that I am wrong. To borrow from your last sentence: If the latter option came true, I wouldn't know what it's like not to exist because I wouldn't exist. In fact, to take it further, I wouldn't know anything because I wouldn't be anything.

That would mean we have a god who brings certain people into the world with the acknowledgement that he will punish them. This might fit your definition of just, but it certainly doesn't seem right to me. Well, perhaps we could resolve this problem if you told us your definition of just? The way I see it, how can anything God does with His creation be unjust? Assuming the Bible as truth, God is the creator of everything; apart from His will, nothing is able to exist. Therefore, since what is created owes everything it is, including its very existence, to God, is it not fitting that God has full rights to do with it what He wishes?

That would mean we have a god who sends people into the world knowing he will punish them. This might fit your definition of just, but it certainly doesn't seem right to me.

But that wouldn't be just. That would be eliminating free will by not allowing them to live. If it's not just, it certainly isn't good. That's what I said earlier, you are making up your own definition of good to EXCLUDE being just, which you can't do. But these people would have no chance of being saved. If they are allowed to live, then they will definitely go to hell. Being in that situation doesn't seem just or good.

He knew since the beginning which of his people will use their "free choice" to choose evil. He could have eliminated those people from the start. Edit: I have to agree. I havnt been posting here, but I have been reading most of the posts and that was one of the best posts I have read so far. Cool post Astralinre 8-) Yeah seriously, Astra I have to give you mad props. It made me think a lot. Boy, I have to agree. I had NEVER thought of it that way!! :D As I said before, the prospects of eternal damnation do not seem very touching to me. If I were given the choice between experiencing life and then spending eternity in hell, or not existing at all, I would choose the second option.

I wonder why you are under the impression the creating the potential for evil and creating evil are the same thing. As I said, the mother knew, before the birth of any of her children, which ones will ultimately be good and which ones will ultimately be evil. If the above sentence differs from god's situation, please correct me. Because of the mother's sentient capability, evil is no longer a potential. Evil will exist if she decides to have the evil children, and evil will not exist if she decides not to have the evil children. There is no uncertainty or possibility involved. Before she made her decision, she was already aware of the ultimate, final, end result.

You're figured out why I'm wrong? Why thank you! What if child #2's death inspires someone who knew him to go into addiction counseling. What if the addiction counselor is able to save hundreds of lives because he saw the terrible life his friend led? I think you're referring to the non-believer being a warning/lesson to others. However, the key concept is my use of god as the creator of all. Therefore, anything you add to my example must be born (in other words, created) from the mother. So, in that case, the person who "saw the terrible life his friend led" must be child #3. To phrase it better: if we are using my example, and we are to acknowledge god as the creator of the universe, then everyone must be "sons" and "daughters" born from the mother. There cannot be anyone who is not from that single family. So, child #3 sees the terrible life of child #2. He then saves the lives of some of his siblings. However, the mother, before the birth of any of her children, already knew which of the siblings will ultimately be saved (whether by child #3 or otherwise). Therefore, she had the choice to choose which children to have. A choice that she did not take. Perhaps this is purely a matter of personal preference. Would you rather experience life and then spend eternity in hell, or not exist at all? Maybe you would prefer the former, but assuming your definition of god and the afterlife are correct, I would choose the latter.

No. I never said child #1 is not a sinner. The point is that in the end he became a successful doctor, while in the end child #2 died as a drug addict. My example fits fundamentalist religions perfectly. You can't debate the nature of truth if you do not establish even one thing that you consider to be an example of truth.