h2o4life_200

Moose-
The archaelogical evidence for Christianity does not and will not come in the form of a red banner that says 'this is the proof of God'. However, let us look at a historian's perspective and we will see what I believe to be the most important truth of the fact that a man by the name of Jesus walked this earth and was indeed crucified. It is from there that the story diverges into many different stories. The evidence however is in the excavation of the ruins of the city of Jeruselam where Jesus was crucified outside the city gates at a location called the Place of the Skull or Calvary. It is thought that a particular stone has been excavated that was the stone that the crosses stood upon at Calvary. There is also an investigation of the Shroud of Turin which is claimed to be the burial cloth of Christ. You should know however that I am not invested in Christianinty because of these kinds of claimed evidence. I am personally a skeptic when it comes to the claims of archaelogical finds, simply because there are too many people that try to fake something that I feel does not need assistence. ie the tablet from Soloman's temple. My belief is centered around the special revelation that God prepared for me. My belief is in essence a personal feeling for which I cannot fully imform you of because of its nature. If those archaelogical finds turn out to be legitimate, that is fine and dandy but I must remind you that Christianity is not a cut and dried by science kind of thing. That is why it involves faith. That having been said, I believe that there is evidence in the use of the things like morals, and logic, and reason. They do no verify themselves in a non-theistic worldview. However, when placed in the Christian worldview, they begin to take shape and make sense and lose their ambiguity. For example; Is logic or reason the only way to find truth? This an epistemological dilemma. If logic or reason is used to prove the statement then circular reasoning is used. If you use another way to find truth then you refute the statement itself. My point is not to undermine logic, it is to simply point out that it is not self-verifying and requires the use of a worldview that coencides with it properly. The same thing goes for morals. Once you take them out of a Christian worldview the ambiguity sets in and things like comparative morals and utilitarianism sprout up. A life can be and is lived by many outside the light of Christ. I am not here to say that if you dont convert you will die and all of that hell and brimstone thing. I simply try to bring the good news of christianity but there are consequence for unbelief as revealed in scripture. I think that it is a decision that is best left up to the individual. It is no one's place to tell others that they are condemned. As for the Christians that have acted as poor examples of believers, that is too bad. I hope that their acts have not turned you from consideration of Christianity. Unfortunately, all people are guilty of being imperfect. It is what we do with our lives despite that imperfection that truly matters.

Buffman

Care to expain why you believe that? I find it to be a rather arrogant and insulting remark. At least the non-theist worldview does not require the promise of reward or threat of punishment to recognize, understand and practice civil and socialized behaviour. It doesn't take a great deal of common sense to know what works and what doesn't.

That sound much like the old carrot-stick conditioning system. Perhaps the reason for adopting the Old Testament as part of Christianity was to have a fall-back stick in case the "good-news" carrot approach failed to sell the eternal life insurance policies.

It's what we do that contributes to the betterment of humanity in the natural world that should matter. If you mean that we must work at bettering (whatever that means) ourselves in order to be able to contribute to the betterment of the lives of others, then I will say, "Hear! Hear!"

llamaluvr

Well, I was going to respond to your comments, but, if you're done, well, I guess I'm done, too! No sense in writing if we're done- I'm a busy boy- I've got classes to pass! But, if you're not done, just say the word, and I won't be either.

Anyway, sorry I'm such an idiot! Peace out! :wave:

Ah, yes, but it's often more about who's driving than what's under the hood. Jesus was the Jeff Gordon of using scripture. Not only in substance, but in style. Heck, it looks like he even whipped it out sometimes to crack a joke (John 10:34-39?)!

Actually, the Catholic church's implementation of morailty is one I respect greatly. Yeah, there's some things in there that aren't Biblical (although, it is generally not as if they're anti-biblical). But, most of their rules are just explicit redefinitions of what is already there. I'm glad that they've taken the time to map all that out. A lot of other churches haven't done that, or have done a poor job of that, and the result is that they just throw their morality to the wind every time it turns out that there's some part of it that isn't very popular.

The trinity is actually in the Bible. It's not called that, though. It is an abstraction made to help talk about it. It's just like in nature. Escherichia coli exists in nature, even though the word doesn't exist in nature. We just named it that so we don't have to call it "that bacteria that lives inside your intestine" every time we want to refer to it (Not that it takes any less breath to say "Escherichia coli" :-P ).

ROFLMAO. I wish I could say that I've never heard that before...

I think a lot of it is also about how people get all antsy about the whole "witnessing" thing. They're afraid that if they're seen in a bar drinking that it will be a "poor witness". Except that that's probably one of the first places Jesus would go today.

ArchAngel

^ Actually I think Jesus would be on stage jamming with The Allman Brothers, The Grateful Dead, or some other jam band. That's just me though.

Buffman

Please! You are not an idiot. You are merely one more victim of conditioning and manipulation. So are we all. Fortunately for some, they come to recognize that fact. :wave:

IamMoose

LOL.

Well we're all a product of our environments no? If I'd been raised a fundy - there but for the grace of God and all that - then maybe I'd be one. I was raised a liberal agnostic, well liberalish anyway and voila .. that's me.

Sometimes I do worry that maybe the fundies are right (not often admittedly) and I am the one who is wrong, blinded by my upbringing and environment.

Then I go and have a large slug of whiskey straight from the bottle and the thought usually goes away..

IamMoose

).

I dunno ... I don't think that the idea of the trinity, or even of Jesus's divinity, really IS made specific in the bible... even as an abstract idea. I don't think that I would ever have picked up on such a thing, or even the idea that Jesus was supposed to be God, had I not been told.

I am sorry .. I know I am responding to this thread in a really piecemeal way and haven't addressed all the things that have been posted to me - Seebs I am not ignoring you post!. I am finding it interesting tho.

Buffman

My comment was in response to llamaluvr's phoney, self-deprecating, sarcasm.

We are all a product of genetics and the environment. However, some folks learn how to use the critical thinking process, sooner than others, to know and practice the differences between right and wrong regardless of the environment or attempts at conditioning/external manipulation. (Unfortunately we aren't all gifted with the accurate insights and courage of an Emile Zola defending Alfred Dreyfus.)

I hope the day arrives when you don't need to take a mind numbing drug in order to know the differences between fact and fiction. Religious 'inerrantists' are already addicted to a thumb-sucking drug. If you must take mind-altering drugs, try making "getting the accurate facts" your drug of choice. That is how I have been getting my highs for seven decades. :thumbs:

llamaluvr

I love when I read a post, think of how I want to respond to it, turn the page, and there it is! :-)

It really brings to light another thing that really bugs me- why does everybody think Christians are masters of mind control or something like that? My church hasn't taught me any of these techniques yet. :-P

We're products of our environments, but at least environments change enough that we have to choose to stick with one or go with another (at least). If I was really just a product of the environment I grew up in, I'd still be a cultural Catholic, which is a far cry from what I am today, a ful-blown fool for Jesus.

I don't think there's much of a case for the Trinity if it isn't clear that Jesus is God, but I think it is. There's John 1 ("...the word was with God and the word was God..."), and John 10 ("....I and the father are one...."), and then apostles and disciples back him up, like Thomas in John 20 ("...my lord and my God...", or something), and 2 Peter 1 ("...our God and Savior Jesus Christ...") and prophecies like Isaiah 9 ("...Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God..."). Ugh, I hate posting laundry lists of verses, but I guess the point is, taking those words at face value, it pretty much says it straight up.

Anyway, the bigger point is, the first 2/3 of the Trinity are pretty easily. The Father is obviously God, and (if those verses check out) Jesus is God, too. With the Spirit, we've got a lot of verses lumping it with the Father and the Son (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Peter 1:1-2), and then a kinda cool one which basically equates the Spirit's power with God's power (1 Cor 2:4-5...just found this tonight- w00t!). There's a bunch of others, but you get the idea.

The other big thing we need to look at is the role the Spirit plays. It's a replacement for Jesus, basically (in the sense of having a member of the Godhead working directly with humans). Jesus basically says that he's leaving, but he's sending the Spirit.

I guess you could build a case for not including the Spirit, but I have no clue where the heck else he would come remotely close to fitting, and he's quite snug where he is.

No, that was real sarcasm. :-P

In all seriousness, Buffman, I'm curious about your faith. I'm not saying your environment is dictating your beliefs, but it does seem that you have a lot of resources (many of which you've already linked to) that you trust, and at least reinforce what you already believed prior to reading them. How do you know that these sources are legit, and not just FUD-factories?

Buffman

Thank you for the confirmation of the obvious.

At the moment, it is dark outside. I have "faith" that, in a little over three hours, it will be daylight outside again. Yet for all of humankind who lived before a few daring men challenged the accepted word/interpretations of the religious manipulators, the earth was the center of the universe around which everything else, including the sun, revolved. (Is that what you still believe on faith? If not, why not?) These particular religious men of your God, and so many other supernatural gods, were wrong back then and are wrong about many things today. Apparently you wish to believe 2000+ year old campfire tales about the unknown rather than challenge it with the one gift you have that separates you from being a tree stump, moss or a mental microbe...the capability, if not the trained ability yet, to differentiate fact from fiction.

The links I provide are for everyone to read and draw their own conclusions. Do they contain verifiable evidence to support their hypotheses? I leave that decision to each reader. As I mentioned before, I learned how to separate fact from fiction. I recommend you learn how to do the same so you will not have to ask the kinds of questions that you do. (If you don't, I guess I will simply start calling you ostrichluvr...said sardonically.) :wave: