 |
| |
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Would a just God tolerate sin? |
It's not about tolerating sin... it's about condemning us to a life of sin from birth. That seems unfair and not the work of a just God. And what about God's sins? If he is creator of all, is he not responsible for allowing sin? If he's God, he could create a world without sin.
quote:
Could Adam and Eve live in peace, with plenty of fresh water, and food, plus the companionship of God? They would have each other, and light work to keep them occupied. |
Why would God need his creations to do this?
quote:
Sounds like paradise to me. Sure, the big man in the sky is uptight about that one plant, but I can dig the rest. |
God knowingly created temptation and he knew what the end result would be. He created the sin.
quote:
Would it have been better for him not to have created us in the first place? |
Perhaps, and we would not be the wiser.
quote:
Yes, we have our flaws, but that does not excuse us from our sins. We sin, not only through our nature, but through our desire to sin. We love sin, we glory in it and we revel in it yet we blame God for the temptations? |
But sin is subjective in God's eyes. Is something a "sin" just because God says so? What is the reason that say, premarital sex, is a sin? If what we do in this world is of little importance (peaks and valleys, etc) then what does it matter IF we sin? Why would God create us with a desire to sin if he doesn't want us to sin? Is it simply just a game to him? To see if we have enough will power to not indulge ourselves? What kind of a sick demented God would create such a scenario and let it play out for the hundreds of billions (or so) of human beings that have ever lived?
quote:
The universe expands, and has a finite size, and finite age.
For one who has read Hawking, remember that he accepts the big bang theory, which presumes a finite universe. |
well, to be precise, the big bang says matter is finite, but space extends without boundaries... forever... I don't quite believe in that theory. I think its quite possible that there is infinite matter in the universe and that "big bangs" may be localized events. If space extends forever, who is to say there isn't more matter beyond our detection?
quote:
It's like this. I'm in a poker game, and my opponent keeps pulling royal flushes. Every hand. How long do I sit before I accuse him of cheating, or is this merely random? |
That analogy doesn't quite relate in any way to our existence. Since there is no way of knowing the "chance" of our random existence, it's not possible to form such an analogy. My point stands. Just because something isn't probable, doesn't mean it isn't possible.
quote:
Why reject an explanation that does make sense, just because science cannot explain it?
Science does not claim to explain everything, since not everything can be proven empirically.
For example, how would you test God in such a way that the experiment could be replicated consistently? |
Because I do not believe in something 100% unless it is proven beyond all doubt. I accept that Christianity's explanation of things, however flawed, is possible... I just don't see it likely. It's more likely it is the manmade creation... myth, superstition. How is the myth of Jesus any more or less valid than say, Zeus or Poseidon? It seems arbitrary to accept the myth of Jesus when it is not proven beyond all doubt.
It's my position that if we cannot explain something adequately, we shouldn't believe in conjecture or assumptions just because they might "make sense". It might "make sense" that rain is the result of God "crying" for instance. But through the scientific method, we have learned how water and weather works. If God has given us anything, he has given us minds with which to use, lose, or abuse. If we cannot explain something, we should continue to seek the truth. If we are content with an unprovable explanation just because it makes sense, we may never KNOW the truth.
How would I test God? It wouldn't be a test, necessarily. It might just be a conversation... if God spoke to me in a way no other person is capable of speaking to me, I might believe in him. For instance, if he were able to take me back in time, or do something beyond the range of what I've come to know as possible in the physical world, then that would be proof enough for me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wernazuma III
There's a passage in Quran where Muhammad, or better put God himself speaking through him, accused Christians and jews to have faked some parts of their texts. |
quote:
Albert Speer: yeah, as i said, they supposedly inserted things. |
what passage?
Quote it 
quote:
Imran Siddiqui: You know, I find it hard to take someone seriously who said that the Koran is wrong because it said Jesus' mother was Miriam and not Mary, while not realizing the Miriam is the Arabic name for Mary! |
Man, did you really just not read my argument?
I gave as an argument that the father of Miriam, the mother of Jesus is Amran in the Koran.
Amram is the father of Miriam and Moses in the Bible.
This has nothing to do with arabic names.
I find it hard to take someone seriously who doesn't even read the arguments one gives, but just jumps on the bandwagen after reading 30% of someones post. 
quote:
What about Native Americans before 1492 and everyone who lived before Jesus Christ? They didn't know about Jesus. Are they in hell just because they never knew about him? |
No, Paul's letter to the romans deals with this.
It says that the gentiles who do not have the law have their own concience as a law.
Believing in Jesus means you don't believe you can do it yourself.
If people who do not know Jesus still admit that they're not able to achive good by themselves and hope someone can help them, I'm sure Jesus will help them.
And in the end I'm sure that God will judge everyone rightiously.
quote:
See Christianity is bullshit because supposedly all you need to get into heaven is faith. |
The original sin is that humans thought they could be gods themselves, deciding over good and evil.
Having faith in Jesus means you admit that you can't be god yourself, since you're not able to rightully judge over good and evil. That's why you depend on Jesus.
Having faith in Jesus means you want to be renewed by Jesus. Everyone needs to be renewed by Jesus to live onthe renewed earth.
Hitler needs to, Sadam Hoessein needs to, I need to and so do you.
It's your opinion that people should earn eternal life. There's nothing to be earned though. God wants to give everybody eternal life, but demands those who enter it to be renewed. How can a corrupted person live on a good new earth without corrupting it?
quote:
The correct answer to religion is simple. We don't know. Nobody living, and nobody who has ever lived, knows if there is a God. |
It's always easy to ignore many people who actually did talk to God. It's a little bit of "If it didn't happen in the 21st century and it was not on tv, it's not true"
Only a fool can believe that there's nothing between heaven and earth. Only a fool can believe that only that what we can observe exists. Only a fool can believe that there are no supernatural powers working on this earth. Something that has been proved many times.
We do know. God has sent prophets, who proved themselves by prophecising things that happen in our days. They prove they knew things thousands of years before they happened.
People have been healed, and the message has been said. That you ignore these prophecies and these miracles, and still claim that we can't know morely shows your ignorance then that it speaks of the truth.
It only speaks of your 21st century truth. The truth you believe in because everybody around you believes in.
The truth everybody believes in on this day and age, but which will be forgotten and laughed about in 500 years, because the people will have new excuses in those days to not believe in God.
quote:
So all religions... Judaism, Islam, Christianity... they all are works of fiction created by humans. And thus, shouldn't be believed in. |
Of course it is amazing that the bible is written by more then 30 different persons over a period of 1500 years.
People from total different social classes. Like kings and stephards. Generals and poets. Fishers and tax-collectors. By people who lived in the Roman empire, the babylonian empire, the greek empire.
And still the Bible is very very consistent. The message is clear through all those very different books. Books with poems, lessons, chronicles, letters, prophecies. Not just one style, but many styles.
And the writers of these books didn't make themselves the hero's. David admits his big mistakes. (adultery, murdering) Pete writes how foolish he has been. Paul writes about his murdering past and admits that he is the biggest sinner ever.
Moses writes how he was a fool by thinking he knew better then God.
In all those books not the writers are central, but God is and Jesus is. Why would these writers be so consistant about a person who is death? Why would they give their lives for something they were sure about that it was a lie?
Why would Pete die on a cross for Jesus, while he knows that he didn't saw Jesus after his death?
Would you lie that your friend ressurected and die for it, while you know that your friend didn't ressurect?
The bible is not written by just one human. And the christian faith has not been invented by one person.
It's not to be compared with the islam, who had one person who one day wrote one book and claimed that God gave him the texts.
What *if* mohammed was a brilliant idiot who sucked it all from his thump?
But if you take 4 or 5 or 10 writers from the bible, and claim that they are idiots, there are still 20 others left over and more then enough material to show the consistance through the ages, through the millenia.
Mohammed was the hero of his own faith.
He conquered much land and forced people to believe him. He was more a warrior then a prophet.
Islam is founded on one person.
The christian faith / jewish faith is not. It's been with us for as long as we can write.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
what evidence? 2000 year old stories isn't enough proof for me. |
So, something that was true 2000 years ago isn't true right now anymore only because it's 2000 years later?
In that case all books over evolution can't be token seriously in 2000 years as well, because they're 2000 years old?
If someone in the 21th century meets God and writes about it, his writings are valuable in during the 21th century, but suddenly utter crap in the 22th century since they're 100 years old?
If it hasn't been on TV it's not true?
quote:
I think it is likely he existed. But, mind you, I think Jesus Christ actually existed... but all the supernatural stuff? I don't so much believe that. |
supernatural stuff happens every day on earth.
Have you ever been in africa?
Do you really deny the fact that supernatural things happen?
quote:
Part of the problem I have with Christianity is the question faith. I get the impression I'm suppose to have faith regardless of proof. And that just isn't good enough for me. |
Are 3000 year old prophecies coming true today not enough proof?
Zach 12:3
"And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it."
of course the last line still has to happen. Just a matter of time if I read the newspapers.
2 Tim3 :
"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
Amos 9:14-15
"And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God."
Ez 34:13
"And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
Molly:
quote:
According to legend, the Egyptian god Osiris created the world by an act of masturbation. |
where the hell did you get this lie?
Amun created the world by masturbation! Amun!
He also created Hu (the personification of the word) and Sia (the personification of intellect) from his bleeding (yes his bleeding) penis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
no... Ptah created men...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
The question is if you are happy with yourself, and believe that you're a good person, or do you see the corruption in yourself. Do you see that there's something wrong with us. |
There's definitely something wrong with humanity as a whole, but I don't believe we are born into sin as Christianity teaches. We have a mind to determine between wrong and right. And having said that, morality is subjective, not universal. And there must be reason behind wrong/right, good/evil. According to Christian teachings, not keeping a Sabbath is a sin, right? What difference does that make? What is the difference if one out of seven days is devoted to God? Why does God need humans to do this?
I suppose that's the difference between believers and someone like myself. I question, why things are the way they are. I seek to understand. I question the establishments of religion. And the best answer I get is, "We are imperfect, so you can't understand the answer, so don't ask."
That's a pretty weak answer. And it hardly gives credibility to the notion that there is a God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
...According to Christian teachings, not keeping a Sabbath is a sin, right? What difference does that make? What is the difference if one out of seven days is devoted to God? Why does God need humans to do this? |
There is a text in the New Testament about this. Some of the diciples were taking ears of corn from the fields, and the Pharisees said this was blasphemy, "working" on the Sabbath.
Jesus is recorded as saying, "which is it better to do on the Sabbath? Good or evil?"
So, no it isn't.
quote:
[SIZE=1]
I suppose that's the difference between believers and someone like myself. I question, why things are the way they are. I seek to understand. I question the establishments of religion. And the best answer I get is, "We are imperfect, so you can't understand the answer, so don't ask."
That's a pretty weak answer. And it hardly gives credibility to the notion that there is a God. |
My own understanding of religions is that they are belief systems with rules. When it's OK to be born, to fvck, to kill, to die, and when it's not.
Personally I reckon no belief system can account for all possible variables. In other words, I take life in my stride and make my own decisions.
It's a lot easier, making decisions as you go, rather than trying to make the "correct" decision all the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
There's definitely something wrong with humanity as a whole, but I don't believe we are born into sin as Christianity teaches. |
Christianity teaches that we are born leaning towards wrong. We are not born in sin.
Every human is doing wrong. Some do more wrong then others. But we all do wrong. There's no-one on earth who never harmed someone, fysical or psychical.
I think that if we look at humanity we can conclude that everybody leans towards doing wrong.
In which doing wrong means: serving yourself most of all, and have your own profit on the first place. or in other words: being the god of your own kingdom called 'me'.
quote:
We have a mind to determine between wrong and right. |
That's true, that's what the bible says.
The original sin is that we want to determine between wrong and right ourselves, instead of leaving it up to the professional, who is God.
We have a mind to determine between wrong and right, but for some reason we can't. If we could, why is it such a mess on earth?
quote:
And having said that, morality is subjective, not universal. |
Morality is subjective indeed.
But there is a way to live together in which everybody will be most happy. Like there is a way to ride a car so that it will work the longest period.
Much people have much opinions on how to ride a car as good as possible. And most opinions are subjective. But that doesn't mean that there is no way to keep your car as good as possible.
I would say, if you ride a car, listen to the constructor of the car on how to use it.
If you are a human, listen to your creator to know how to live, sine he'll most obviously know how you will be the most happy and living in hapyness with your fellow humans.
But humans rather listen to themselves and decide themselves on how to live then that they listen to their creator.
quote:
According to Christian teachings, not keeping a Sabbath is a sin, right? What difference does that make? What is the difference if one out of seven days is devoted to God? Why does God need humans to do this? |
No, the jews keep the sabbath as a sacred day in their constitutial law. Christians don't have a holy / sacred day. They do have a day on which they celebrate the ressurection of Jesus. But that day isn't different then other days, besides that the church meets on that day.
The New Testament is clear that days are all equal.
Why is the sabbath in the old testament, you wonder?
Well, in the constitutional laws of The Netherlands it is written that we may not work more then 40 hours per week, and not more then 6 days in a week.
It's to make sure that people have rest.
I think there is a thing that it's better for a society if all people rest on the same day, so they can have their off-day together. Build their friendship and their family values.
quote:
I suppose that's the difference between believers and someone like myself. I question, why things are the way they are. I seek to understand. |
Why do you think you and I differ on that?
You should really get rid of your 'christians don't think by themselves and never criticize their believe and only listen to their preacher' idea.
It does not apply to most modern christians.
I think there are more people believing blind in evolution then christians who believe blind Jesus Christ and what the bible says.
quote:
I question the establishments of religion. And the best answer I get is, "We are imperfect, so you can't understand the answer, so don't ask." |
That's not the answer I gave you.
quote:
That's a pretty weak answer. And it hardly gives credibility to the notion that there is a God. |
that's why I don't give that answer.
Neither does the bible give that answer.
I know, much christians do, but that's because they don't understand it themselves.
When all is said and done there will of course be answers that'll stay open. But nobody forbids us to keep on looking for those answers.
The real question is: would you be able to accept the truth if the truth means that you're not able to achive total hapyness by yourself but you must be helped by someone else who is better then you are?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
Molly:
where the hell did you get this lie?
Amun created the world by masturbation! Amun!
|
Oh, I dunno, same place you get some of yours?
Remember how you asserted the Indies were so called because the Spanish named them after 'in Dios' ?
In any case, I'm happy to correct Osiris to Ra-Atum.
'With this foundation, the Heliopolitan cosmogony develops the myth further. The first event was the creation of Atum, the god of Heliopolis. There is dispute over whether he created himself, or was the son of Nu. Some texts say he first appeared over the hill, others say he was, himself, the hill. Eventually, Atum became associated with Ra, the sun-god. Ra-Atum at this point is said to be the coming of the light to disperse the darkness of Nu. Ra-Atum is symbolized by the Phoenix in this context. His next task was to create other gods. He did this by masturbation, not having a mate. This was not offensive to ancient Egyptians, but in fact intensified his power in their minds. '
http://www.touregypt.net/gods1.htm
That's courtesy the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism.
I can't recall pretending I was infallible. Perhaps you have me confused with the Pope, or Obi Gyn.
If you want to suggest someone has knowingly purveyed information they knew to be a lie, do so.
If you're simply pointing out an error, there are more civil ways of doing so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
I know him as a ficticious character since I don't believe in his existence. Will I be sent to hell for that? |
You know what hell is? It's being seperated from God, from Jesus, forever.
I can't answer your question straight, I am not God.
I can ask some counter-questions though.
- you don't believe Jesus exists. Do you want Him to exist in the way the Bible describes Him?
- Are you happy to be seperated from God for eternity, in case He exists?
Anyway, hell is seperation from God.
The seperation came into existance in the beginning when mankind chosed to be their own God, and thus claim they don't need thé God.
If you still claim you don't need thé God, apart from the question if He exists or not, and if you claim you can make things allright yourself, you can try to for eternity.
And you don't have to be with the God you don't want for eternity.
It's not a matter of believing into his existance.
It's a matter of believing in the truth behind yourself. I believe that the truth behind mankind, how corrupted we are and how we can't help ourselves, still stands even seperated from the question if God exists or not.
But I wonder if you want a serious question on your answer, since I already said this before.
I think you just want me to say one specific things so you can give your pre-made reaction on that.
I'm sorry, I won't give you a simplistic answer that suits your needs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
You know what hell is? It's being seperated from God, from Jesus, forever.
|
Oh, is that all. See I didn't know that. Jesus seems like a cool guy from the stories about him, but I don't believe those stories, so I'm not really worried about being seperated from someone who I don't believe in.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
- Are you happy to be seperated from God for eternity, in case He exists?
|
This question doesn't make sense. Do you want to ask me if I would be happy to be seperated from him for eternity if I believed that he existed?
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
It's not a matter of believing into his existance.
It's a matter of believing in the truth behind yourself. I believe that the truth behind mankind, how corrupted we are and how we can't help ourselves, still stands even seperated from the question if God exists or not.
|
I certainly wouldn't say that I'm corrupted, but I'm no benevolent God either. Is this something that you wanted to hear.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
But I wonder if you want a serious question on your answer, since I already said this before.
I think you just want me to say one specific things so you can give your pre-made reaction on that.
I'm sorry, I won't give you a simplistic answer that suits your needs. |
I was really checking to see if you had a decent answer for my question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
It's not about tolerating sin... it's about condemning us to a life of sin from birth. That seems unfair and not the work of a just God. And what about God's sins? If he is creator of all, is he not responsible for allowing sin? If he's God, he could create a world without sin.
|
He could, but that would require a world of automatons, that would not have free will. Free will must entail the possibility of rebellion as well as to love him freely.
As for original sin, why would God condemn us to a life of sin at birth? You are right, he should not condemn us to such an end, which is why we are offered something more than existence in sin.
We are given the capability of responding to God in our hearts, and God is always trying to draw us to him. So he has not forsaken us.
He promises us that the vagarities of the flesh will fade away, to be replaced by something better, in the next world. So we will not always be held by our sin. Everyone who opens his heart to God will receive this life, and only God can examine all hearts to see that this is true.
quote:
Why would God need his creations to do this?
|
Why does God need us at all? He gave us these things because they are good for us, and not for him. We needed these things, so he gave them to us.
quote:
Would it have been better for him not to have created us in the first place? Perhaps, and we would not be the wiser.
|
That's a good question, but how could anything be better or worse for him? God is sufficient in himself, and cannot be added onto or taken away from.
The only thing I can see is that it would be better for us, if he did so, and not for him.
quote:
But sin is subjective in God's eyes. Is something a "sin" just because God says so? What is the reason that say, premarital sex, is a sin?
|
Sin is many things. A good way to sum up all of sin, is that it is an attempt to replace God with something else. This can take a wide variety of forms. Sin not only is what God says, but it has a very real effect on our lives. We are not made to work well with sin, yet we delight in sin to our own detriment. So it is not arbitrary, yet it is defined by God.
quote:
If what we do in this world is of little importance (peaks and valleys, etc) then what does it matter IF we sin?
|
The effect that it has on ourselves. If we are immortal, in the sense that our souls do not perish, then the effects of sin on ourselves are of great importance.
quote:
Why would God create us with a desire to sin if he doesn't want us to sin?
|
Why is there any suffering at all in this life? Why does rain fall on the righteous and the wicked? It's the same question in different forms. The best answer that I can see is that in order for God to know our hearts, he must test them.
quote:
What kind of a sick demented God would create such a scenario and let it play out for the hundreds of billions (or so) of human beings that have ever lived?
|
Because the alternative is non-existence, and because he offers us a time, where this suffering will not exist, and he offers this to everyone.
A father tests his child to prepare him for adulthood in building character. The same is with God. It hurts now, and we can't see why this has to happen, but it will make more sense later.
quote:
well, to be precise, the big bang says matter is finite, but space extends without boundaries... forever...
|
Space and time come to a point, and origin. Space is finite, though expanding.
A previous theory stated that the universe was infinitely old, and static, and it has only been the last 75 years that has provided the evidence for an expanding universe, that has not existed forever. That theory I believe was Ptolemy's but originated with Aristotle, that the universe has no beginning or end.
quote:
I don't quite believe in that theory. I think its quite possible that there is infinite matter in the universe and that "big bangs" may be localized events. If space extends forever, who is to say there isn't more matter beyond our detection?
|
It only makes sense to say that you have an infinite universe, if the universe is static. If the universe expands, then it has to be finite. It cannot expand without having an edge.
quote:
That analogy doesn't quite relate in any way to our existence. Since there is no way of knowing the "chance" of our random existence, it's not possible to form such an analogy.
|
From what we know, and the principle that you were saying, the chance is infinitesimal that the requirements for the universe such that human life exists could have arisen through chance.
It's called the Weak Anthroscopic Principle, and it involves a whole host of physical constants that a small change would vastly alter the fundamental principles of the universe.
quote:
Just because something isn't probable, doesn't mean it isn't possible.
|
True. It's possible that your friend could have drawn all those royal flushes by chance. But honestly, it would seem more probable that he cheated.
quote:
quote:
Because I do not believe in something 100% unless it is proven beyond all doubt. I accept that Christianity's explanation of things, however flawed, is possible... I just don't see it likely.
|
If there were a better explanation, and one that made more sense, then it would be taken. But however improbable, the possible answer should be taken.
quote:
It's more likely it is the manmade creation... myth, superstition. How is the myth of Jesus any more or less valid than say, Zeus or Poseidon? It seems arbitrary to accept the myth of Jesus when it is not proven beyond all doubt.
|
Now, we've made an important distinction. You are right, that from what I have said so far it is impossible to say that one should believe in Christ moreso than Zeus. There needs to be other things put in place to make this point.
quote:
It's my position that if we cannot explain something adequately, we shouldn't believe in conjecture or assumptions just because they might "make sense".
|
Granted. With Christ, I would not ask you to make this leap, and fortunately he doesn't ask us to do so either.
quote:
If God has given us anything, he has given us minds with which to use, lose, or abuse. If we cannot explain something, we should continue to seek the truth.If we are content with an unprovable explanation just because it makes sense, we may never KNOW the truth.
|
Very true. I do not fault someone for questioning. God encourages us to use our minds to their capacities, at the same time as reminding us of our limitations. In fact, if you start to think about things, our limitations become very much more clear.
quote:
How would I test God? It wouldn't be a test, necessarily. It might just be a conversation... if God spoke to me in a way no other person is capable of speaking to me, I might believe in him.
|
Yet he is not subject to our commands. If he were, he would not be God.
quote:
For instance, if he were able to take me back in time, or do something beyond the range of what I've come to know as possible in the physical world, then that would be proof enough for me.
|
Which brings us to miracles, and back to my earlier question. How do we determine in history, whether someone is telling the truth? We may have eyewitnesses, yet eyewitnesses can lie.
I am making the case that Christ has already performed such actions with eyewitnesses to verify his claims, including hostile ones. These hostile witnesses are to be considered much more reliable than those of the facile witnesses, the ones who would be more likely to agree with him.
Now, we can go through the whole host of them, or through one, the Resurrection. If Christ did not rise from the dead, on the cross, then he is worse than a liar and Christians are responsible for misleading many souls across history. If he did, then his claims about himself ought to be accepted as truth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
"It is solely to those books of Scripture which are called 'canonic' that I have learned to grant such attention and respect that I firmly believe that their authors have made no errors in writing them. When I encounter in these books a statement which seems to contradict reality, I am in no doubt that either the text (of my copy) is faulty, or that the translator has not been faithful to the original, or that my understanding is deficient."
|
Yes, what is the problem with that statement, and how does it contradict what I have said earlier? It does nothing of the sort.
"I firmly believe that their authors have made no errors in writing them."
Which is my testimony as well.
quote:
'The second chapter of the book of Luke states that, shortly before the birth of Jesus, the emperor Augustus ordered a census to be taken throughout the Roman world. Luke states that every person had to travel to the town of his ancestors in order for the census to be taken. He points to the census as the reason that Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus is said to have been born. In the book entitled Gospel Fictions, Randal Helms states that no such census was ever taken in the history of the Roman Empire.
[quote]
He also says that it is ridiculous to think that the practical Romans would require millions of people to travel enormous distances to towns of long-deceased ancestors merely to sign a tax form. '
|
Let's look at the Gospel accounts first before the rest of this.
Luke 2:1-4
"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world."
"(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)"
"And everyone went to his own town to register"
"So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David."
Now, the author that you cite doubts this account on two grounds. First, that the Romans did not conduct no 'such' census. It seems to me that the sting lies in the word such. Did Caesar Augustus in the time of Quirinius conduct a census?
Your source does not answer this question Molly.
Secondly, the quote addresses the problem with the fact that Joseph and Mary 'travelled a great distance' in order to be registered, and that obviously the Roman Empire lacks the facilities to deal with this, or to conduct a census. This is false for two reasons.
First of all, the Romans had the capacity to conduct a census over their entire empire.
Secondly, how far is it from Nazareth to Bethlehem? About 70 miles and would have taken them about 4 or 5 days to travel.
This is by no means impossible.
I suggest you go here Molly, they give an extensive detailed account of Caesar Augustus, perhaps the greatest Emperor in Roman times, and the censes he conducted.
http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html
quote:
There is no 'actual historical confirmation of the incident which Luke recounts.' Luke is our only extant source of information on this subject."
|
Historical confirmation exists for a census conducted by Caesar Augustus at the time of Christ's birth. I believe that is sufficient evidence to establish the reliability of this statement by Luke, that Joseph did travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
As for your second source, from my source:
"The three empire-wide censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. In all probability the one in 8 B.C. is the one the Luke mentions in the Christmas story. Even though scholarship normally dates Christ's birth between 4 and 7 B.C., the 8 B.C. census fits because in all likelihood it would have taken several years for the bureaucracy of the census to reach Palestine."
So this would explain the census, which ibri insists,
"It is doubted that there was any decree made by Augustus to "enroll the inhabited earth." No evidence for such an order is known."
I would consider that rather feeble investigation by your source molly to be scooped by Christians.
Now, as for the second contradiction, both quotes from my source above.
"But the problem is, according to records available to us, Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6-7 A.D. -- eleven years too late!"
"This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governing Syria." What does Luke mean by a first census? One theory offered is that the Greek word for "first" (prote) is sometimes translated "prior to" or "before." This is a viable solution because the Greek text of Luke 2:2 can indeed be translated, "This census was before Quirinius was governing Syria."
Now, another explanation, resting on more solid ground.
http://www.scripturessay.com/cev2.html
"He tells us of an inscription found at Rome in 1828 indicating that Quirinius was governor of Syria, not once but twice, and also that William Ramsay, just before World War I, had found a monument in Asia Minor likewise implying two governorships for Quirinius."
Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History, Scripture Press, p. 285.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 29-07-2004 at 05:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
Now for your second attack on the historicity of the Gospels:
'The second chapter of the book of Matthew asserts that, shortly after the birth of Jesus, King Herod ordered the massacre of all male children two years of age or under in Bethlehem and its vicinity. In the book of Luke, which contains the only other New Testament story of Jesus' birth, there is no mention of this order. It is also not mentioned in any of the secular histories of the time, and not even by those writers who carefully described many far less wicked deeds of Herod (such as Josephus). '
Asimov, Isaac, Asimov's Guide to the Bible, (New York: Avenel Books, 1981) p. 796.
Really, we are to believe Isaac Asimov as a biblical authority?
In any case, once again starting from the citation of Scripture, which Asimov does not bother to provide.
Matthew 2:16
"When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. "
Now, to turn Asimov's own statement against him, from none other than the same author as before.
Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History, Scripture Press, p. 285.
"A man who had his own wife and her mother put to death, his brother-in-law forcibly drowned in a swimming pool, and his own sons strangled-such a man would not have even so much as hesitated in giving the order that the children under two years of age in Bethlehem should be slain."
All Asimov offers is an argument from silence that just because Josephus did not mention something, means that it must not have happened. It is consistent from what we know of Herod to issue such an order.
"When we add to that the complete lack of reference in contemporary secular histories to Herod's slaughter of the innocents, we have compelling reason to believe that this event that Matthew claimed was a prophecy fulfillment never even happened."
Now difference here. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have a compelling reason, from the character of Herod.
Farrell Till. "Prophecy Fulfillment and Probability." The Skeptical Review. 1993. Number Four.
Hardly suprising to see you cite Till, Molly.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 29-07-2004 at 05:56
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-07-2004 05:16
Avoiding the issue I guess.
|