Is God real post your thoughts!

[michel555555]

and yet you are not refuting anything about my other points. about the 10 comandments and the people of all religions who brought them or about the story of noahs arc and the stories that were told before it.

 

 

 

better yet name one historian durring that time who actually mentions jeusus christ

[michel555555]

Well, the top part makes Finnish law sound crappy. I have a hard time believing it, though. From what I can look up, Finland has freedom of religion, and there is nothing that says you have to be over eighteen. Anyways, what church are you talking about? Evangelical Lutheran? For an evangelical church, they sound quite liberal. Also, according to Wikipedia, your figures are wrong by 4%. ;)

 

 

 

As to your last part: not even gonna touch that. Petty and worthless.

 

 

 

Almost all countries, even the ones with a christian religion as the majority, require you to be 18 years old to make a decision about removing yourself from a church/joining it. (Some conservative countries with an islamic majority might even prohibit leaving) Otherwise you need the consent of your guardian or parent.

 

 

 

As a minor you can't sign binding legal documents without the supervision of an adult responsible for you, so if you, Lenticular wanted to join/part from a religion and were under 18 years old, you'd need the permission of your parents too pretty much regardless of where in the world you live. It's not just Finland or the USA.

 

 

 

 

 

my personal opinion is that law and religion should have nothing to do with each other. no matter you age you should be able to decide your own beliefs

 

 

 

for instance you have any idea how hard it is for an atheist to adobt a child? there have actually been several court casses about athiests being denied to adobt because they were "refuseing their child the chance to believe in god" while if anyone with strong religious beliefs were to adobt him or her they would have no chance at all to chose there own beliefs

[Barihawk]

and yet you are not refuting anything about my other points. about the 10 comandments and the people of all religions who brought them or about the story of noahs arc and the stories that were told before it.

 

 

 

better yet name one historian durring that time who actually mentions jeusus christ

 

 

 

For one, Moses predates Greek society. The 10 commandments were widely distributed among the world the eventually Greek and subsequent Roman takeover of the Judeah region. They are pretty common sense rules and found niches in many societies around the world. Hell, they weren't even alien concepts to begin with. And without sources from you, I continue to call your story crap.

 

 

 

As for Noah, nearly every civilization on Earth has a flood myth. It's safe to say that a global fund happened as there is anthropological and archeological evidence of it. So Noah wasn't the only person to survive the flood. It is a possibility that could explain human presence on faraway regions like North America (since the Iberian land bridge theory is on it's last legs and several scholars have come out with strong ideas against it). The fact is we don't know exactly what happened as it occured pre-history. As the Bible is being told to people descended of Noah, it's not necessary to tell what happened to anyone else.

 

 

 

As for your latter question...a lot? Romans were writing essays on Christ and word of those events reached as far away as Ethiopia and China within a hundred years. It was a well known event within the Roman sphere of influence.

[michel555555]

and you didn't answer the question again. can you tell me the name of one scholar who was actually alive at the time and witnessed jesus christ and his miracles and not years after he was supposedly dead?

[Cup Lion]

By the way, there is historical evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed. Look it up on Google.

[Saru Inc]

By the way, there is historical evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed. Look it up on Google.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well yea, even Islam says Jesus was alive.

 

 

 

Michel555555 - Your points don't really make any sense, any of em.

[Ginger_Warrior]

By the way, there is historical evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed. Look it up on Google.

 

I don't think there's many people who deny a man called Jesus existed. It's the miracles and the whole "son of God" or "prophet" thing some people object to.

[Furah]

By the way, there is historical evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed. Look it up on Google.

 

I don't think there's many people who deny a man called Jesus existed. It's the miracles and the whole "son of God" or "prophet" thing some people object to.

 

 

 

Good, because if everyone agrees that a man called Jesus existed then I bring in this point. Jesus must have either been lying, mad or who he said he is. Now from what he was saying throughout the Bible, we can tell that he was, infact, not lying. From this we can also realise that he is not mad, as he did not act like a madman (even though he did throw over the tables in the church, but so would just about any other sane Christian.) This leads me to believe that he must be the 3rd option, and is who he said he is.

[Lenticular_J]

I don't think there's many people who deny a man called Jesus existed. It's the miracles and the whole "son of God" or "prophet" thing some people object to.

 

Well, if you're atheist, you won't be calling him a prophet period; but the three major monotheistic religions all account for him as a prophet, whether minor or major.

[Ginger_Warrior]

By the way, there is historical evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed. Look it up on Google.

 

I don't think there's many people who deny a man called Jesus existed. It's the miracles and the whole "son of God" or "prophet" thing some people object to.

 

 

 

Good, because if everyone agrees that a man called Jesus existed then I bring in this point. Jesus must have either been lying, mad or who he said he is. Now from what he was saying throughout the Bible, we can tell that he was, infact, not lying. From this we can also realise that he is not mad, as he did not act like a madman (even though he did throw over the tables in the church, but so would just about any other sane Christian.) This leads me to believe that he must be the 3rd option, and is who he said he is.

 

Since when did disagreeing with someone's perception of the world equate to labelling them a madman or a liar?

 

 

 

I merely stated I believe a man called Jesus probably did exist around that time, just as I'm sure a man called Muhammed existed around the time Islam was founded. That doesn't mean I have to believe in every word they both said, though.

 

 

 

If you're telling me God exists because Jesus was literally right in absolutely everything he said in the Bible, I can smash a big hole in your argument by telling you there is no way you can feed masses of people with two fish and five loaves of bread, unless of course, he performed a miracle, for which there is no conclusive proof, and thus we return to the Burden of Proof fallacy.

 

 

 

The fact is, I don't know if Jesus was the Son of God or not. That lack of information is not sufficient enough for me to go "God exists", though.

[Barihawk]

Than that's your own belief.

 

 

 

I was just objecting to Michealman5555 or whatever the name was. I was kind of hoping by trashing one or two points of his "argument" that he'd topple but I guess we had to go line by line. Thanks Ginger for at least proving that final point.

[Cup Lion]

By the way, there is historical evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed. Look it up on Google.

 

I don't think there's many people who deny a man called Jesus existed. It's the miracles and the whole "son of God" or "prophet" thing some people object to.

 

 

 

Good, because if everyone agrees that a man called Jesus existed then I bring in this point. Jesus must have either been lying, mad or who he said he is. Now from what he was saying throughout the Bible, we can tell that he was, infact, not lying. From this we can also realise that he is not mad, as he did not act like a madman (even though he did throw over the tables in the church, but so would just about any other sane Christian.) This leads me to believe that he must be the 3rd option, and is who he said he is.

 

My instructor proposed Lewis' Trilemma to me and I really wasn't convinced. I find Lewis' Trilemma a very poor explanation for the divinity of Jesus. Personally, the way his logic works in this case was confusing to me. Its very hard to convince someone by saying that because his teachings were not flawed, he couldn't have been insane.

 

 

 

Michel55... said he wanted evidence of a "scholar who witnessed jesus christ and his miracles..."

 

I was just saying that, even if you don't believe he performed miracles, he did exist, and many people "witnessed" him. And many people will agree with that. :)

[Lateralus]

By the way, there is historical evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed. Look it up on Google.

 

I don't think there's many people who deny a man called Jesus existed. It's the miracles and the whole "son of God" or "prophet" thing some people object to.

 

 

 

Good, because if everyone agrees that a man called Jesus existed then I bring in this point. Jesus must have either been lying, mad or who he said he is. Now from what he was saying throughout the Bible, we can tell that he was, infact, not lying. From this we can also realise that he is not mad, as he did not act like a madman (even though he did throw over the tables in the church, but so would just about any other sane Christian.) This leads me to believe that he must be the 3rd option, and is who he said he is.

 

 

 

I can't understand this line of reasoning at all. It's ridiculous.

[Lenticular_J]

Well, if you use it at a bar, you might get a lady.

[Saru Inc]

By the way, there is historical evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed. Look it up on Google.

 

I don't think there's many people who deny a man called Jesus existed. It's the miracles and the whole "son of God" or "prophet" thing some people object to.

 

 

 

Good, because if everyone agrees that a man called Jesus existed then I bring in this point. Jesus must have either been lying, mad or who he said he is. Now from what he was saying throughout the Bible, we can tell that he was, infact, not lying. From this we can also realise that he is not mad, as he did not act like a madman (even though he did throw over the tables in the church, but so would just about any other sane Christian.) This leads me to believe that he must be the 3rd option, and is who he said he is.

 

 

 

I'm a Christian, but there's a preoblem with that statement. You can use it for Darwin, he wasn't mad, and he wasn't, to his knowledge, lying, so evolution must be real. Even though I don't think it is, that staement can backfire on you in so many ways.

[Kenshinjapan]

By the way, there is historical evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed. Look it up on Google.

 

I don't think there's many people who deny a man called Jesus existed. It's the miracles and the whole "son of God" or "prophet" thing some people object to.

 

 

 

Good, because if everyone agrees that a man called Jesus existed then I bring in this point. Jesus must have either been lying, mad or who he said he is. Now from what he was saying throughout the Bible, we can tell that he was, infact, not lying. From this we can also realise that he is not mad, as he did not act like a madman (even though he did throw over the tables in the church, but so would just about any other sane Christian.) This leads me to believe that he must be the 3rd option, and is who he said he is.

 

 

 

I'm a Christian, but there's a preoblem with that statement. You can use it for Darwin, he wasn't mad, and he wasn't, to his knowledge, lying, so evolution must be real. Even though I don't think it is, that staement can backfire on you in so many ways.

 

 

 

A man alone on an island looking for the meaning of life? Sounds pretty crazy to me :P .

[Saru Inc]

By the way, there is historical evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed. Look it up on Google.

 

I don't think there's many people who deny a man called Jesus existed. It's the miracles and the whole "son of God" or "prophet" thing some people object to.

 

 

 

Good, because if everyone agrees that a man called Jesus existed then I bring in this point. Jesus must have either been lying, mad or who he said he is. Now from what he was saying throughout the Bible, we can tell that he was, infact, not lying. From this we can also realise that he is not mad, as he did not act like a madman (even though he did throw over the tables in the church, but so would just about any other sane Christian.) This leads me to believe that he must be the 3rd option, and is who he said he is.

 

 

 

I'm a Christian, but there's a preoblem with that statement. You can use it for Darwin, he wasn't mad, and he wasn't, to his knowledge, lying, so evolution must be real. Even though I don't think it is, that staement can backfire on you in so many ways.

 

 

 

A man alone on an island looking for the meaning of life? Sounds pretty crazy to me :P .

 

 

 

 

 

Same to me, but he wasn't clinically insane, I think. That doesn't mean his theories were right though.

[warri0r45]

They're not Darwin's theories any more, Saruman. People have worked on them since the 1800's.

 

 

 

The idea that the validity of evolution lies on the shoulders of Darwin is ludicrous, and a popular method of "invalidating" evolution for creationists.

 

 

 

Gregor Mendel was a key figure in establishsing the science of Genetics, but there's been way more study into it than just breeding peas. Added, we don't call genetics crap if we think he was nuts. That's really irrelevant if his ideas have been supported by scientific studies thousands of times over.

[121snake121]

I'm not going to deny the concept that there could be some kind of divine power who created the Universe, but I disagree with the ideas of Christianity and the bible. If god is real, what would he gain from damning people to hell? Why would he bother creating humanity? Why would he send his son to Earth? There are many questions that are difficult to answer with logic.

 

 

 

I beleive that if there is a god, the god that created matter with led to the big bang and so on, he would not be the one we've been worshipping (I mean, what are the chances that of all the possible religeons, this one is the right one)?

 

 

 

I'm still yet to be convinced.

[Saru Inc]

I'm not going to deny the concept that there could be some kind of divine power who created the Universe, but I disagree with the ideas of Christianity and the bible. If god is real, what would he gain from damning people to hell? Why would he bother creating humanity? Why would he send his son to Earth? There are many questions that are difficult to answer with logic.

 

 

 

I beleive that if there is a god, the god that created matter with led to the big bang and so on, he would not be the one we've been worshipping (I mean, what are the chances that of all the possible religeons, this one is the right one)?

 

 

 

I'm still yet to be convinced.

 

 

 

 

 

If you really wanted to be conviced, you'd be already.

 

 

 

It's our fault we're going to hell, not his. (If you're nhot saved, that is) and I'm not sure why he created it, but I know hundreds of people who do know why, I just forgot the reason. He sent his Son to earth, because when man sinned, He wanted something to bridge the gap from Heaven to Earth. And logic has absolutley nothing to do with it.

[Lenticular_J]

Although you're better than most, and I know your intentions are good, stop blatantly attacking Christianity when you apply incorrect, blanket views that would hardly apply to evangelical churches. Argh.

 

 

 

I personally don't believe much of this, but - Hell would be eternity on Earth - or, Satan's domain. God isn't damning people. Evangelicals say only true believers would go to Heaven - that much, I believe. As to humanity being created, that is never fully explained - I doubt anyone, religious or otherwise, could explain that.

 

 

 

Sending Jesus to Earth? He dislikes the state of the world, but instead of wiping out humanity with a flood, He decides to let everything run its own course - but, sends Jesus to Earth first, as a sort of nudge in the right direction.

 

 

 

You can't answer religious questions with scientific logic any more than you can answer whether or not cloning is morally right or wrong. They're two different things entirely.

 

 

 

All monotheistic religions believe in the same God, just different ideas of worship, tradition, and how God acts. When you refer to God as a single deity, I will refer to that (Note: I believe all Gods, goddesses, trees, mathematical formulas, etc. are God).

 

 

 

Aaaanyways. Just defending my fellows without a voice.

 

 

 

EDIT: Dammit saru. I'm referring to 121snake here.

[Cup Lion]

I'm not going to deny the concept that there could be some kind of divine power who created the Universe, but I disagree with the ideas of Christianity and the bible. If god is real, what would he gain from damning people to hell? Why would he bother creating humanity? Why would he send his son to Earth? There are many questions that are difficult to answer with logic.

 

Firstly, its a person's choice to go to hell. Their actions (all people have free will) are their own responsibility. God doesn't gain anything from people being sent to hell. Trust me, its obvious that he wants everyone to be with him in heaven, or else he wouldn't have created purgatory. Only pure people are allowed in heaven, so God gives us purgatory in order that we may become pure and join him. Seems like God is doing his best to help us gain eternal life.

 

 

 

He sent his Son to Earth, as many other people have said, to save everyone. His teachings redirected people in the right direction. Also, His death signified God opening the kingdom of heaven to everyone, not just the chosen people.

[Errdoth]

And logic has absolutley nothing to do with it.

 

That's probably why I'm not a religious person. I need evidence and facts in order to believe something. (religious texts don't cut it for me) I need for things to add up and make sense for me to believe them, that's just the kind of person I am.

 

 

 

Also: Has it occurred to anyone else that the Judeo-Christian God (and Jesus) could easily be explained by aliens?

 

 

 

Moses on Mt. Sinai and all other accounts of a voice from the heavens - Loudspeakers from spaceships

 

Transfiguration/Angels/Annunciation - Star wars style hologram communications with Moses/Abraham/Whoever, Jesus took off his human "disguise" for the actual transfiguring/glowing part

 

Resurrection/Lazarus/All related healings - Nanotechnology

 

Water into wine/Feeding of the 4000 (or 5000?) - Matter replication

 

Walking on water/Parting of the Red Sea - Tractor beams? :P

 

Speaking in tongues (Pentecost, was it?) - Farscape style translator-microbes

 

Christmas Star - A spaceship..duh :P

 

Immaculate Conception - Mary was taken into the ship and artificially inseminated (Could also result in the dreams Joseph and Mary had about what to name their kid, for Joseph not to stone Mary, etc.)

 

 

 

I do believe I've made a major breakthrough in religion/theology here. :lol:

[Lenticular_J]

Nah, I've liked that idea. Would explain a helluva lot more in Egyptian paganism (which developed into Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam), though. I watched a show that brought about this theory, once. Some pretty sound discussions.

 

 

 

Could always be a mix'o'both, though.

[Cup Lion]

Errdoth, I believe you've solved the mystery! :P