The_Unknown_Banana

Just as a sidestep here, wouldn't something like this make christians think twice, were it true?
(It's the whole "jesus is a copycat from earlier religions" thing)

Eric H

Hello Wyz_sub10,


Eric quote:
Yes I have followed the thread of the flood, when God killed everyone, and I have read in the old testament of whole tribes of men women and children being killed in the name of the lord.Despite all this I still have faith that God is a God of love.
------------------------


Quote Wyz_sub10
Is this because of want and need again? Do you feel that you are ascribing these values to god because you believe that it must be thus? (IOW, the bible's message isn't as consistent with what you have come to know as love, so you hold fast to the idea that this love exists in god.)
=================


Having the need to believe in an unprovable entity is a risky business, because we can make it what we want it to be.

I can easily believe in a God of fear from reading the Bible.
I can easily believe in a God of truth who is exclusive to my religion through the Bible.
I can believe in a vengeful God through the old testament.
I can believe in a God of love.

Whichever of these Gods I choose to follow will influence my actions.

It is easy to understand that if I need to believe in any of these things, then I will be influenced by any person who says what I want to hear. It seems that many people can be influenced by an exclusive God of fear, vengeance, and truth.

It is easy to understand, how clever people can use these religious motivations to manipulate their own needs, of wealth and power.

If I choose to follow the God of love then I should look for a church that actually practices visibly what they preach. Supporting people in the community, bringing people together, encouraging people to look after the vulnerable, and caring for each other.

Peace

Eric

Mageth

Having the need to believe in an unprovable entity is a risky business, because we can make it what we want it to be.

Why would anyone need to believe in an unprovable entity?

Eric H

Hello MollyMac

Quote MollyMac,
What Wyz said. Your post is an illustration of the most extreme kind of faith, which appears to those of us who don't share it as a massive exercise in self delusion.
==================


You call it an extreme kind of faith, and I suppose it is because you are motivated to do more of something, whether this is extreme good, or extreme evil.

You say it is an exercise in self delusion, and it could well be if there is no God.


=============
Quote: In spite of the evident indifference of God to human suffering, you still have faith that he is a God of love? Is there anything that would made you "doubt" this?
=============



I believe in God and I believe in Christ, and he said no greater love has any man then if he should lay down his life for a friend.

For this to make any sense, then it has to represent love and goodness.

We do read about the other extremes, where people lay down their own life for God so that they can kill others. This has to be wrong.

Christ’s life was one of serving others and personal sacrifice, and I cannot believe that God was indifferent to the suffering of Christ. I don’t believe that God is indifferent to our suffering, otherwise this would surely be wrong.

peace

Eric

theophilus

Well, now, that's a different question. That's a matter of Theology, not apologetics.
We're discussing (indirectly) the foundations for knowledge. For the Christian, the foundation for all knowledge is revelation.

General Revelation is the the wittness of the created order.
Special Revelation is the wittness of scripture.

The_Unknown_Banana

Then why let it go on? He has the power to stop it... it's like you watching some guy rape a woman, having a gun or a phone to call the cops, but instead going "oh that poor woman" and watching. This is how it seems to me anyhow.

theophilus

Only if you assume that these stories are all equally false, i.e., there is no authentic supernatural reality of which others are a carefully crafted counterfeit.

Aside from the anthropological quandries raised by such speculation (since all men descended from a common post-flood source, they would have a shared body of theological knowledge which would become distorted), the events of Jesus life and their significance are clearly pre-figured in the Jewish scriptures.

The events of Jesus' life derive their significance from their prophetic, revelational context.

The_Unknown_Banana

So.... that's a no? What you're saying is:
1) If the stories don't exist, then that's fine, and yours is the only one.
2)If they do exist, then they are based on the same Jesus, distorted after having been passed down through generations from post-deluvian survivors.

If case one is true, well, then where are all the other stories which would have been passed down from the same group of survivors?

If case 2 is true, well there's a couple of problems. First is, these stories are older than christianity itself (as far as I understand). Perhaps this isn't a problem, however the flood happened many years before jesus by any account, so the distortion of the stories would have happened before Jesus was even around. If you get what I'm saying?

Furthermore, if my assumption that these stories are older than Jesus' supposed time is correct (and they would have to be for them to have any relevance to this argument), then perhaps it is christianity that has the distorted version?

The_Unknown_Banana

(of course this argument is kinda fruitless, as I cannot prove those stories correct, but this whole thread is based on hypothetical evidence anyway, so eh!)

Jobar

Eric H:
If I choose to follow the God of love then I should look for a church that actually practices visibly what they preach. Supporting people in the community, bringing people together, encouraging people to look after the vulnerable, and caring for each other.

A fine goal, and none of us would wish to discourage you.

Thing is, you can say it this way-
If I choose to follow the ideal of love then I should look for a group of like-minded people that actually practices visibly that ideal. Supporting people in the community, bringing people together, encouraging people to look after the vulnerable, and caring for each other.

It means the same thing, so far as I can see. I've known atheists, humanists, Buddhists, Muslims- people of any belief, or none- who consider love the highest ideal in the world. To add on the idea of a god just seems, well, superfluous. You really don't need to believe in a god to want to do these things.

Theophilus, tootling his presuppositionalist kazoo:
All atheistic claims to truth/proof are meaningless.

Sigh. Theophilus, how many times have you had it pointed out to you that simply proclaiming something to be true does *not* make it true?

There are immense vistas of human knowledge which are atheistic in that god(s) is (are) simply irrelevant to them. Do you claim that information theory and quantum electrodynamics are "meaningless"? I point out that the computer on which you read my words is a direct consequence of "atheistic claims to truth/proof".

In fact, I find your statement a case of the pot calling the refrigerator black. The reverse is in fact the case- all theistic claims to truth/proof are meaningless.