Post: #876

(07-29-2018 01:06 AM)Quizzical_2 Wrote:  Mage, I tend to agree that all of those people existed. And I've considered evidence for their religions as well, but I've found them lacking in that regard. Well, except for Moses, I consider him a prophet.

You know who existed more surely then all of them? Karl Marx. Adolph Hitler. Maybe you should fallow their teachings then?

For me it is all about the teaching itself. We will never know history for sure, because we were not there. But we must analyze what is right and what is wrong with our own mind.

Post: #877

Well, it's not just about if they existed it or not, it's about if there is evidence for the central claim of their religions. Christianity was not started to be some other philosophy, like Stoicism, it was started because the Messiah as foretold in the scripture had arrived. Christianity claims certain things happened in history, and that these things are evidence of its claim as being the only way to God. So it's not a matter of dissecting every religion for some good parts and bad parts, but it's a matter of critical thinking and evidence.

@Mage

Post: #878

Not at all. My parents forced me to go to church and the last time I went back was for a wedding about a decade ago. It isn't just that you can't prove the existence of God but I've met so many hypocritical and socially retarded Christians that it makes it hard for me to want to go back. I don't like to be guilt tripped, told I'm going to hell, lectured, getting scripture blasted in my face through a loudspeaker, etc. I'll have to steal a joke from the Simpsons and say "But what if we choose the wrong God? We'll be making the real God madder and madder!"

I make the fact that I'm agnostic perfectly clear yet some people think I must be a Bible Thumper or some other silly classifcation just because I support Trump. I will admit there was a phase I went through where I bashed Islam but I learned to not do that since Muslims are society's protected class (I don't watch the news aka state sponsored prpaganda).

Post: #879

"Not at all. My parents forced me to go to church and the last time I went back was for a wedding about a decade ago. It isn't just that you can't prove the existence of God but I've met so many hypocritical and socially retarded Christians that it makes it hard for me to want to go back. I don't like to be guilt tripped, told I'm going to hell, lectured, getting scripture blasted in my face through a loudspeaker, etc. I'll have to steal a joke from the Simpsons and say "But what if we choose the wrong God? We'll be making the real God madder and madder!"

I make the fact that I'm agnostic perfectly clear yet some people think I must be a Bible Thumper or some other silly classifcation just because I support Trump. I will admit there was a phase I went through where I bashed Islam but I learned to not do that since Muslims are society's protected class (I don't watch the news aka state sponsored prpaganda)."

Im not sure if this was directed at me or not, but I have a few points I want to address.

1. I think it's possible to prove(or, by the same token, disprove)the claims that Christianity makes. If I demonstrate evidence for Jesus' resurrection, to the point I establish it as a historical probability, a belief in God seems inevitable.

2. While there is bad Christians, the same could be said about every group of humans in history. It's not that big of a deal, although, along the same lines, a burden of being a Christian is persecution from the world. Christians are the enemies of the world; we are supposed to be hated. We are not of this world.

3. I don't like being guilt tripped either, or any of those things for that matter. I admonish my fellow Christians who think this is a good way of spreading the Good News. As you imply, often times this only serves to turn people away from Christ. With that being said though, the truth of an idea is not based upon the behaviour of its adherents.

3. What if you choose the wrong God? This isn't an argument, it's just more of a deflection from having to examine the evidence. Also, what if game is just a made up concept used to promote the patriarchy?

Post: #880

I have been reading a book by the Hindu philosopher Malhotra, and he states that the importance of history is the major difference between the West and the East.

The Abrahamic traditions, Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam all place importance on historic fact without which the religions wouldn't be true. Whereas, in the East, a particular history is not important to the religion itself. The truth comes from observation of Dharma or natural law. The Christian would have to reject his beliefs if the history was found to be untrue. However, natural law can't be invalidated by history. For example, we don't need to know the history of gravity to observe the effects it has on us now. If gravity is true, it is true and can't be invalidated by someone's historical belief.

"I began to see the beginnings of what was later to crystallize as my thesis that history-centrism is the key difference between Judeo-Christian and dharma traditions". -- Malhotra

Malhotra sees this as a disadvantage of the Abrahamic religions.

"The mentality of the West has long cherished the aggressive and quite illogical idea of a single religion for all mankind, a religion universal by the very force of its narrowness, one set of dogmas, one cult, one system of ceremonies, one array of prohibitions and injunctions, one ecclesiastical ordinance. "

"Dharma shies away from context-free, absolutist 'commandments', which end up as dogma and frozen canons of history. This flexibility in spiritual methodologies often gives rise to charges of moral relativism. However, built into dharmic traditions are many safeguards against moral laxity and relativism."

"The dharma traditions see themselves as free from Western 'complexes', do not bear the burden of sin and guilt, and are not shackled by institutional authority, historical precedent or religious exclusivity."

"Since Hinduism does not require membership in an organization, club or institution, and since it glorifies sadhus, who pursue their own independent journey, the problem of excessive institutional control has never arisen. No authority has the power to excommunicate a person from Hinduism."

"Christianity's exclusivist claim that Jesus was the only incarnation is unacceptable to the dharmic religions. In the dharmic tradition, each avatar comes to establish the eternal truth anew in response to the need of the time."



Malhotra, Rajiv. Being Different: "An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism"

Post: #881

(07-29-2018 04:40 PM)Quizzical_2 Wrote:  Well, it's not just about if they existed it or not, it's about if there is evidence for the central claim of their religions. Christianity was not started to be some other philosophy, like Stoicism, it was started because the Messiah as foretold in the scripture had arrived. Christianity claims certain things happened in history, and that these things are evidence of its claim as being the only way to God. So it's not a matter of dissecting every religion for some good parts and bad parts, but it's a matter of critical thinking and evidence.

@Mage

How do you know this? Have you read Torah in Hebrew? Have you seen this history? Are you not aware that history is written by winners? And by (((winners)))? If not then you do not know. You just trust what some priest told you or what you read in some book written by a Christian theologian.

I will tell you what is critical thinking and evidence - When I was sick and timid - I went to Church and they either promised me healing by Jesus or told me that suffering is good. Conflicting message. Anyway nothing changed. Then I did some Yoga poses and - boom - my ailment diapered and my personality changed for the better. Now I absolutely know that spiritual practice and trying to unite with God in everyday life trumps academically researching scripture for obscure clues and constructing air castles, theories and dogmas, in your head.

What you call critical thinking is not critical thinking - it is twisting evidence to suit your preferences. Critical thinking is about obtaining experience and making congruent conclusions.

Post: #882

I find it funny, St. Paul would most likely agree with base sentiment of the passages above. He did say that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, we above all men should be pitied for believing in a lie. But that's what it comes down to: did Jesus rise from the dead? If he did, then he has been validated as God's Son, which means His claims to be the only true way to God is correct.

Post: #883

(07-29-2018 11:53 PM)Quizzical_2 Wrote:  I find it funny, St. Paul would most likely agree with base sentiment of the passages above. He did say that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, we above all men should be pitied for believing in a lie. But that's what it comes down to: did Jesus rise from the dead? If he did, then he has been validated as God's Son, which means His claims to be the only true way to God is correct.

1.This contradicts the story of St. Thomas who was shunned for not believing without seeing.

2.If Jesus rose from the dead he should have stayed arisen, so that we could see it as well as his disciples. Ascending to heaven only 40 days later and being seen only by his loyalists and not - say Pilate or Pharisees is suspicious.

3.Seeing raising from the dead only proves raising from the dead. There is still a few steps missing before equating this with claiming Jesus is God if he doesn't say so clearly ( he never does that in Bible). He might be resurrected by God without being a God.

4.Even if this proved Christianity as right, we would still be lost in the wast number of denominations all claiming unique ownership of the right baptism and the one true salvation. Why won't Jesus explain which denomination is the right one?

Post: #884

1. How does this contradict with Thomas? Thomas' denial has little or nothing to do with the Resurrection as an evangelical tool. The earliest Christians appealed to Jesus' miracles, fulfillment of OT prophecies, and Resurrection as evidence of their claims.

2. The Risen Jesus also appeared to Paul, his skeptical family(James and Jude) as well as an unnamed 500 people. I also doubt that appearing to Pilate or some other Roman official would have truly changed them; and if it did, it's likely the early Church would not have been persecuted. It's very likely God wanted the early Christian church to be persecuted for a time, for various theological and historical reasons...
Also, Jesus has stayed risen for thousands of years, and He will eventually return to earth at some point in the future.

3. First of all, I consider his conquering of death to be inherently tied to his other miracles and claims. If God rose him from the dead, He has validated everything Christ said. And yes, I do believe Jesus claimed to be God; numerous times at that.

4. Why won't he? I think it's called "spiritual maturity." Generally, I think if you believe Jesus is the divine Son of God, that he is the Messiah, that God is a trinity and a few other things, you're saved. This is from my examination of the history of the Church, as well as evaluation of the New Testament in its context. So, if you join any church that agrees with the most basic premises of Christian doctrine, you're good to go. And I think Jesus would agree with that sentiment, as well.
(Side note: obviously if you promote obvious heresies like Modalism, I have serious doubts that you can be saved. Believing in a wrong Christ/God isn't going to save you. A false Christ didn't die for your sins.)

Post: #885

Re previous comment from Mage:

I tend to believe what scholars and academics tell me because they've dedicated their lives to their studies. I might not know Hebrew, but they sure do.

I'm also not sure how what you did is "critical thinking." If anything, it suggests the opposite, because you didn't consider what prayer truly is from a historical point of view.

@Mage

Post: #886

Personally, I do and I'm not going to prove to you why. If you are interested in what encourages me to believe, just read this article.

Post: #887

Post: #888

(08-28-2018 07:20 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

There is no Osho anymore either.

Post: #889

Osho didn't say there isn't a god. He said there isn't a creator. Because something can be there without being created. And introducing a creator then introduces the question of who created the creator, and you have a logical confusion which is totally unnecessary. It's interesting that Stephen Hawking came to the same conclusion based on a deep understanding of physics.

Post: #890

This is what I believe:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He arose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the prophets.

In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Post: #891

(08-28-2018 03:53 PM)ilostabet Wrote:  This is what I believe:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He arose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the prophets.

In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

There's a video of a catholic priest who said that in an instant God can comprehend every thought there ever was and every thought there ever will be.

That's something to think about. Ha!

Post: #892

I think that Buddha had the most intelligent approach to questions about God. Western scholars often incorrectly state that Buddha was an atheist. He wasn't. The Buddha never said there wasn't a God. If you carefully review the literature, every time Buddha was asked about God he would skillfully deflect and avoid answering the question. Buddha was focused on the goal of liberation and he knew that any speculations about metaphysics would take away from that goal and never be useful speech. So he avoided idle chatter.

Other great men have taken this same approach. George Washington was asked numerous times to state his beliefs on religion when he was president, but he never did. He would always deflect similar to the Buddha and his critics started calling him the "Old Fox". But George Washington knew that if he said anything, it would create divisions and never lead to anything useful. It reminds me of all the foolish conservatives who have been recently pranked by the Yiddish humorist Sacha Cohen who took advantage of their willingness to play along with the program in order to look good. They have no character and put their personal concerns above the truth. George Washington would never have been pranked.

Post: #893

Can anyone prove that Jesus is God?

I believe in God, and that's because of my reasoning. It makes total sense to me that there's a god. But I can't say the same about Jesus. I want to believe in the truth, whatever it may be, and if Jesus is real and if He's God, I want to know.

Post: #894

(05-11-2019 05:10 AM)Vladimir Poontang Wrote:  Can anyone prove that Jesus is God?

I believe in God, and that's because of my reasoning. It makes total sense to me that there's a god. But I can't say the same about Jesus. I want to believe in the truth, whatever it may be, and if Jesus is real and if He's God, I want to know.

Ancient Historians noted that Jesus was a real person.
https://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Plus. He makes claims of himself including divinity(Gospel of John mostly). The Gospels were also written shortly after his death and resurrection. And I can vouch for their reliability:




He did many signs and wonders. As recorded in scripture. And rose from the dead:






Plus assuming the Tanakh as the word of God. He fulfilled almost all the Messianic prophecies all throughout the book. Including being the suffering servant(Isaiah 53). With the political rule of Christ including ultra long lives measured in centuries in the future to come.
https://biblehub.com/bsb/isaiah/65.htm

Post: #895

(05-11-2019 05:10 AM)Vladimir Poontang Wrote:  Can anyone prove that Jesus is God?

I believe in God, and that's because of my reasoning. It makes total sense to me that there's a god. But I can't say the same about Jesus. I want to believe in the truth, whatever it may be, and if Jesus is real and if He's God, I want to know.

Try asking him directly.

Post: #896

Yes, I do.

I was raised in a Fundamental Baptist home. Now, do I practice Christianity? Nope. With all my clubbing, running game on loose women, how could you truly follow the God of the Bible?