Do YOU believe in God?

[Mov]

IMO god was made up by people who wanted power over others.

 

 

 

and no i dont believe in god

[Serizzim]

I Believe in God with my whole heart

 

 

 

And I believe that he died for us all and rose again.

 

 

 

correct me if im wrong but wasnt jesus the one who died?

 

 

 

anyway no i dont beleive, i honestly cant beleive something that is so unrealistic and insane. people who are very religious actually make me mad knowing that there are people who beleive in something with all their heart not knowing if it even exists. I think more people "want" to beleive than actually do they want to beleive that people that they knew or loved or whatever, are in a better place and they want to beleive that when they die they will be accepted into that better place also. and i would type more but i really dont want to so...

 

 

 

i dont beleive, and i beleive no one else should beleive...did that make sense?

 

 

 

 

 

There is one God: Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. This is all one.

 

 

 

 

 

IMO god was made up by people who wanted power over others.

 

 

 

and no i dont believe in god

 

 

 

Incorrect. God is a sacred form of supernatural being that created the world. I do not belive it was made up by human but it is very much possible so I say another thing. The human made up (if) God because they got no answers for: How? Why? When? Who?

 

 

 

Even in the history, there are proofs that human kind workshipped god because they didn't knew how what happened. Lets say in a viliage there will be a storm that will destroy many plants buildings and other alike. They belived this is the anger of God.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

That's why science cannot be your basis for absolute truth morality. It changes. :roll:

 

 

 

That's merely your opinion. Who says that God can't, or won't, interact with us? You're ASSUMING that.

 

 

 

Since you can't disprove it, then why are you arguing? I can't prove it with scientific instruments...you can't disprove it with scientific instruments. Stalemate.

 

 

 

You're also assuming here, if I get this right, that the nature of the supernatural is to exist and stand back while its creation just moves itself along. Or, in some cases, while its non-created stuff moves along.

 

 

 

Let me ask again: Why does the supernatural have to NOT do anything? What makes it so uninterested and non-interactive to make you think so?

 

 

 

 

What evidence is there to suggest "absolute truth morality" exists, when itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s obvious (from lack of consensus on morality) that morality is far from absolute.

 

 

 

If you had read what I was saying, you would know that I was talking about the definition of being agnostic, not making a claim. Being agnostic means you accept that it is impossible to have evidence for or against a god, or that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s even possible to have evidence, or that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s even relevant.

 

 

 

It has been disproved in that natural world; we are from the natural world, the soul doesn't exist here any more. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s beside the point, making a claim that has no evidence or evidence opposite to accepted idea's shifts the burden of proof to the person making the claim. If I say there are UFO's in the desert, I don't expect you to roam the desert (and for me to claim that they were moved to an underground bunker when you fail to find them) unless I show you some evidence for their existence.

 

 

 

No, I'm claiming the nature of the supernatural is to be supernatural. It could be god/God, ghosts, pink unicorns or even a galaxy of self contained universes; the fact of the matter is that it can't interact with us in any meaningful way without contradicting its supernatural status.

 

 

 

Like the above paragraph, in order to remain supernatural it can't do anything in our world in any meaningful way; I never said they can't do anything at all, just nothing here. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why they are non-interactive or meaningful; can you give me any reasons why itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s interesting (other then for novelty) or any ways it can interact?

[Guest GhostRanger]

What evidence is there to suggest "absolute truth morality" exists, when itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s obvious (from lack of consensus on morality) that morality is far from absolute.

 

 

 

1) You can't prove the existence and truth of a philosophy.

 

 

 

2) You are confusing absolute morality with innate morality. The evidence that it exsits for Chrsitians is the belief in a God who dictates what morality is. Just because there are people who disagree with right and wrong doesn't mean it's not absolute, it means we have free will.

[twisternl]

I Believe in God with my whole heart

 

 

 

And I believe that he died for us all and rose again.

 

Me2

[my_pet_worm]

I'll answer what I can. Anyway I thought alot of Creationists reject Kent Hovind because even he fails to grasp just what evolution is.

 

 

 

Nothing to do with evolution.

 

 

 

Nothing to do with evolution.

 

 

 

Nothing to do with evolution.

 

 

 

Its not; still nothing to do with evolution.

 

 

 

Nothing to do with evolution.

 

 

 

Nothing to do with evolution.

 

 

 

Thanks, you proved my point. You may be able to explain the beginning of human life (hell even I can man) but you don't know where anything from the beginning came from? 'Matter was just there lol!', yea thats very believable.

[HugATree]

 

Thanks, you proved my point.

 

That you wouldn't know evolution if it bit you? Or you quote creationists who wouldn't know it either?

 

You may be able to explain the beginning of human life (hell even I can man) but you don't know where anything from the beginning came from?

I pointed out 6 or so of the questions had nothing to do with evolution, not that they couldn't be answered.

 

'Matter was just there lol!', yea thats very believable.

 

Science offers testable explanations, still nothing on the invisible man though.

[Biggieg333]

Okay, you don't believe in God. How was the big bang possible if no one was around to supervise, if you will, the happenings. If there is no god, why are there Bibles and churches and crosses? You are God. I am God Bbsa is God. Everyone and everything is a piece of God in it's own personal way. Where did the idea come from to raise your child to see the world? Why would we have children? Beccause God wanted us to. Think about that for a little bit.

[HugATree]

How was the big bang possible if no one was around to supervise, if you will, the happenings.

 

You're saying if no one sees it, it doesn't happen?

 

If there is no god, why are there Bibles and churches and crosses?

The same reason there is cars, planes and space shuttles; people did it.

 

You are God. I am God Bbsa is God. Everyone and everything is a piece of God in it's own personal way.

In the sense of you being the most important thing in your world.

 

Where did the idea come from to raise your child to see the world?

Not really much other options.

 

Why would we have children?

Because some people would feel like it.

 

Beccause God wanted us to.

Good for him.

[bearofthunder]

Before Paul became an apostle, he was rounding up and killing Christians for a living.

 

and

 

I don't have time to search around now, but I'll quote Tacitus, about Nero in 64AD (first century, not 2nd). This is taken from wikipedia about emperor Nero.

...description of the Great Fire of Rome Scandal omitted for length...

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Now, take a thought experiment with me. Think of nothing. That's right, nothing. Most people think of a white room with nothing in it, but that's not true. You have a room and walls. Think of nothing. Out in space? Well, there are molecules in space.

 

 

 

Problem is: You can't think of nothing. You can't comprehend "nothingness", just like you can't comprehend eternity. Our minds can't even think of them. Try thinking of another color.

 

 

 

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 ONLY true basis for truth is Scripture.

 

The scripture is a written text. I once again refer back to something you said that you keep failing to address:

 

 

 

 

What you just argued:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the Vedas took the truth found in God and perverted it before the Bible came along to write down God's truth.

 

 

 

 

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" :

 

 

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 Scripture

 

or

 

-Scripture subverted the Vedas.

 

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Let me be perfectly honest with you: It doesn't matter what you believe because truth is independent of what people believe about it. Gravity exists whether or not I believe it to be true. Truth is truth. God is truth.

 

 

 

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."

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Okay, you don't believe in God. How was the big bang possible if no one was around to supervise, if you will, the happenings. If there is no god, why are there Bibles and churches and crosses? You are God. I am God Bbsa is God. Everyone and everything is a piece of God in it's own personal way. Where did the idea come from to raise your child to see the world? Why would we have children? Beccause God wanted us to. Think about that for a little bit.

 

 

 

Okay, you don't believe in Allah. How was the big bang possible if no one was around to supervise, if you will, the happenings. If there is no allah, why are there Qurans and mosques and crescent moons? You are Allah. I am Allah Bbsa is Allah. Everyone and everything is a piece of Allah in it's own personal way. Where did the idea come from to raise your child to see the world? Why would we have children? Beccause Allah wanted us to. Think about that for a little bit.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Thanks, you proved my point. You may be able to explain the beginning of human life (hell even I can man) but you don't know where anything from the beginning came from? 'Matter was just there lol!', yea thats very believable.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

'Matter was just there lol!', yea thats very believable.

 

 

 

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

 

god caused the universe

 

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.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Before Paul became an apostle, he was rounding up and killing Christians for a living.

 

and

 

I don't have time to search around now, but I'll quote Tacitus, about Nero in 64AD (first century, not 2nd). This is taken from wikipedia about emperor Nero.

...description of the Great Fire of Rome Scandal omitted for length...

 

 

 

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.[/quote']

 

 

 

No, you're wrong. Paul DID know the original apostles and before he was an apostle (when he was called Saul) he was PERSECUTING Christians during the lifetime of the original apostles. Do you think he was trying to kill all Christians except the four who wrote the gospels? Were those apostles just exempt from Saul and people like him who were actively trying to kill them?

[pianofrieak2]

 

But they wouldn't be crucified - like some of the disciples. What I'm saying is, these people had all the reasons NOT to lie about something - they had nothing to gain by it except a painful death.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound.

 

 

 

Mark died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by horses through the streets until he was dead.

 

 

 

Luke was hanged in Greece as a result of his tremendous preaching to the lost.

 

 

 

John faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was miraculously delivered from death. John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos. He wrote his prophetic Book of Revelation on Patmos. The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.

 

 

 

Peter was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross, according to church tradition because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die in the same way that Jesus Christ had died.

 

 

 

James the Just, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown over a hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller's club. This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the Temptation.

 

 

 

James the Greater, a son of Zebedee, was a fisherman by trade when Jesus called him to a lifetime of ministry. As a strong leader of the church, James was ultimately beheaded at Jerusalem. The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian.

 

 

 

Bartholomew, also know as Nathanael, was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed to our Lord in present day Turkey. Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia when he was flayed to death by a whip.

 

 

 

Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: "I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it." He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired.

 

 

 

The apostle Thomas was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the subcontinent.

 

 

 

Jude, the brother of Jesus, was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Christ.

 

 

 

Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded.

 

 

 

Barnabas, one of the group of seventy disciples, wrote the Epistle of Barnabas. He preached throughout Italy and Cyprus. Barnabas was stoned to death at Salonica.

 

 

 

The apostle Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67. Paul endured a lengthy imprisonment which allowed him to write his many epistles to the churches he had formed throughout the Roman Empire. These letters, which taught many of the foundational doctrines of Christianity, form a large portion of the New Testament.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

You know this how? Please stop making comments without any proof to back them up.

 

 

 

Your next post is extremely interesting. Let me take a look at it.

 

 

 

Bible and Vedas: I don't know have an answer for you yet. I WILL get back with you LATER.

 

 

 

Nothingness: No, you cannot comprehend nothingness. It's like comprehending eternity. You cannot picture it, you cannot comprehend it. You can't imagine it. Thus, I don't see how your point is even on-topic.

 

 

 

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."

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Like the above paragraph, in order to remain supernatural it can't do anything in our world in any meaningful way; I never said they can't do anything at all, just nothing here. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why they are non-interactive or meaningful; can you give me any reasons why itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s interesting (other then for novelty) or any ways it can interact?

 

 

 

What makes you and bear so adamant about the fact that the spiritual realm cannot interact with the physical realm? It just HAS to leave the material world alone after it CREATES it? Again, you're assuming your premise which shows how you assume conclusion.

 

 

 

my_pet_worm wrote:

 

'Matter was just there lol!', yea thats very believable.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

What's wrong with pushing the supernatural into the physical realm? If the spiritual realm, as you say, CREATED the physical realm, surely it can interact with the physical realm UNDETECTED by scientific instruments.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Once again I ask, WHY CAN'T HE?

 

 

 

 

 

And HugATree, as an evolutionist, you MUST be able to give valid reasons for not accepting the supernatural as existent. If you say the supernatural does not exist, then how do you explain the creation of the world?

 

 

 

Also, how would you describe love if you deny the spiritual?

[bearofthunder]

 

But they wouldn't be crucified - like some of the disciples. What I'm saying is, these people had all the reasons NOT to lie about something - they had nothing to gain by it except a painful death.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

some traditions state

 

traditionally

 

certain traditions

 

where is traditionally said to have been killed

 

etc.

 

 

 

Note that these phrases are not found in the deaths of non-religious figures from the same time period.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

You know this how? Please stop making comments without any proof to back them up.

 

 

 

I already said I was wrong about that.

 

 

 

 

Nothingness: No, you cannot comprehend nothingness. It's like comprehending eternity. You cannot picture it, you cannot comprehend it. You can't imagine it. Thus, I don't see how your point is even on-topic.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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."

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

What makes you and bear so adamant about the fact that the spiritual realm cannot interact with the physical realm? It just HAS to leave the material world alone after it CREATES it? Again, you're assuming your premise which shows how you assume conclusion.

 

What's wrong with pushing the supernatural into the physical realm? If the spiritual realm, as you say, CREATED the physical realm, surely it can interact with the physical realm UNDETECTED by scientific instruments.

 

Once again I ask, WHY CAN'T HE?

 

 

 

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.

[pmbrother3]

im not sure if there is 'cause there is no things around us that tell us that there is a god.

[bearofthunder]

No, you're wrong. Paul DID know the original apostles and before he was an apostle (when he was called Saul) he was PERSECUTING Christians during the lifetime of the original apostles. Do you think he was trying to kill all Christians except the four who wrote the gospels? Were those apostles just exempt from Saul and people like him who were actively trying to kill them?

 

 

 

in zeal I persecuted the church, in righteousness based on the law I was blameless.

 

 

 

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.

[flava_sava78]

Who here has read the bible? I have read the majority of it, and I just cant say that I believe. There is no proof there is or isnt a God. But has anyone seen the Simpsons where Homer gets really smart? "Oh hey FLanders, I was doing my taxes, and I accidently proved there isn't a God." LOL.

[Guest GhostRanger]

No, you're wrong. Paul DID know the original apostles and before he was an apostle (when he was called Saul) he was PERSECUTING Christians during the lifetime of the original apostles. Do you think he was trying to kill all Christians except the four who wrote the gospels? Were those apostles just exempt from Saul and people like him who were actively trying to kill them?

 

 

 

in zeal I persecuted the church, in righteousness based on the law I was blameless.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Yes he was. In fact, his conversion was on the road to go to a city in order to persecute some more Christians.

[insane]

 

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.

 

 

 

The first recorded martyr in scripture is Stephan, and Paul (Saul) was there, and it said he was giving approval to his death.

 

 

 

Your statements show that I was wrong about Christian persecution beginning in the second century instead of the first. However, neither of your posts relate to the original apostles (a.k.a. "eyewitnesses") themselves.

 

 

 

I believe I said I didn't have time to look into it too much :) I was late for work, and now I'm late for bed. I don't have too much time to devote to this argument, which is why I provided a 'half-hearted' response.

 

 

 

However:

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

This is entirely hind-sight - completely useless to the apostles at the time who saw Christians being martyred. They didn't KNOW that they would die peaceful deaths (assuming you are right) - all they knew is that Christians were being persecuted in brutal ways and that writing the gospels would show themselves as Christian.

 

 

 

Hence, any person wouldn't see the point of lying about something like that - they must have actually believed.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

1) You can't prove the existence and truth of a philosophy.

 

 

 

2) You are confusing absolute morality with innate morality. The evidence that it exsits for Chrsitians is the belief in a God who dictates what morality is. Just because there are people who disagree with right and wrong doesn't mean it's not absolute, it means we have free will.

 

 

 

But shouldn't an absolute set of absolute morals be intrinsically attractive to everyone (otherwise what is the point). Just because we have freewill doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we should against what is aesthetically pleasing. People donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t go around randomly killing each other or go around indiscriminately stealing things regardless of free will; there are certain survival mechanisms which people are compelled to follow (otherwise it will make life more difficult then what it has to be). An absolute moral system should have a similar set of effects for moral judgements, however that is not apparent.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

1) You can't prove the existence and truth of a philosophy.

 

 

 

2) You are confusing absolute morality with innate morality. The evidence that it exsits for Chrsitians is the belief in a God who dictates what morality is. Just because there are people who disagree with right and wrong doesn't mean it's not absolute, it means we have free will.

 

 

 

But shouldn't an absolute set of absolute morals be intrinsically attractive to everyone (otherwise what is the point). Just because we have freewill doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we should against what is aesthetically pleasing. People donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t go around randomly killing each other or go around indiscriminately stealing things regardless of free will; there are certain survival mechanisms which people are compelled to follow (otherwise it will make life more difficult then what it has to be). An absolute moral system should have a similar set of effects for moral judgements, however that is not apparent.

 

 

 

Some peeople do go around stealing and killing people. Absolute morality is NOT innate and there's no reason for it to be. The fact that we have access to understanding morality should be enough for us to decide to follow it. That's the point. Because we are fallible and capable of fallible thought, we are not going to innately know all right from wrong.

[pianofrieak2]

But shouldn't an absolute set of absolute morals be intrinsically attractive to everyone (otherwise what is the point). Just because we have freewill doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we should against what is aesthetically pleasing. People donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t go around randomly killing each other or go around indiscriminately stealing things regardless of free will; there are certain survival mechanisms which people are compelled to follow (otherwise it will make life more difficult then what it has to be). An absolute moral system should have a similar set of effects for moral judgements, however that is not apparent.

 

 

 

Isn't that proving the 10 Commandments? I'm sorry, but I fail to see your point against the Bible...if that is indeed your point. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

 

 

 

As for Ghost's comment on it not being innate:

 

 

 

I would argue that it IS innate (conscience) but it can be overriden and eventually suppressed.

 

 

 

Romans 2:12-16 says,

 

 

 

"12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."

 

 

 

More Scripture:

 

 

 

Isaiah 51:7

 

"Hear me, you who know what is right, you people who have my law in your hearts: Do not fear the reproach of men or be terrified by their insults.

 

 

 

Jeremiah 31:33

 

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

 

 

 

Hebrews 10:16

 

"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."

[Nilfalath22]

yes i believe in god!

 

he is there i now...

 

i scored a winning goal in the final of my football club.

 

i asked god, and he was there!

[geohood]

This is a great website for you to learn about Christ and his relavence to you.

 

 

 

http://www.christianity.net.au/

 

 

 

 

 

What is stopping you from believing? This isnt what some man made up 3,000 years ago, this is a very real thing that has been throughout the heavens and earth for eternity.

 

 

 

WE live for ETERNITY. Life dosen't end here. Get into God and discover your purpose in life. I am a Born Again Christian and God is real to me, PM me if you have any questions or anything you are unsure about, Ill love to help.

[HugATree]

Geohood, good for you; but this topic is about intelligently discussing religion, not "selling" it with fallacies.

[geohood]

"Intelligently discussing religion" is not right. Thats how useless arguments come about.

 

 

 

If you want to know about Christianity its a RELATIONSHIP with God, its not about sciences and history. Good luck to whoever wants to discuss it, it will get you no where. :wink: