Perchance

Claimed. If he existed, if God exists, if the Bible is actually a faithful record of what a possibly non-existent man said...

Variation on Pascal's Wager. 'If you don't turn to Christianity, you may have wasted your eternal life.'

What about the idea that if you remain as a believer and there is no afterlife, you've wasted the one life you have? Have you ever considered that?

If eternity exists. If Christ exists. If true fulfillment exists.

I'm much happier with reading, myself.

-Perchance.

St. Robert

Dave,

You've asked a lot of great questions. All of them deserve sensible answers, which I hope to provide.

I clearly answered 'yes' to your initial question. Whenever I share my faith with anyone, I tell them (Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, etc.) that Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life. That no one comes to God the Father except through God the Son. That Jesus Christ is the absolute and exclusive way to know the truth of our Creator.

* What are some valid criteria for determining what is and is not historical truth?

Archaeological evidence, reliable eyewitness testimony, accurate family records and documentation, geographical and cultural evidence, etc.

* Did you apply these criteria in choosing to accept the message and resurrection of Jesus as historical truth?

Yes. In fact, I continue to study so-as-to defend the faith.

* If at some point you discovered that there is more of a basis for the historical truth of the message and ascension of the prophet Muhammed than there is for the message and resurrection of Jesus, would you then become a Muslim, regardless of whatever personal fulfillment would be gained or lost in the process?

Probably not, because they chose to gain power by two opposing means. Jesus gained power by becoming a victim. Muhammed gained power by being an agressor. Muhammed lived by the sword, Jesus did not.

* If you were to sit down, look at all the evidence objectively, and decide -- based on the facts, and your own reasoning -- that there is no good historical or philosophical evidence for the existence of any gods, would you still believe in the Christian god?

Well, there's a fundamental flaw to the question. Nothing can exist without God. If there were no God, there would be no historical or philosophical evidence (good or bad). It is not possible for God not to exist.

And finally,

* If you were on trial for a capital crime, and your freedom depended on your being able to convince a jury that you are not being deceived by a false sense of fulfillment, could you?

I'm not concerned with whether another man believes my testimony. Your question is actually for the jury to decide.

Has an innocent man or woman ever gone to prison? Has an innocent man or woman ever been executed?

If I were in jail, I'd still be eternally free from sin. My circumstances can't dictate my freedom. The apostle Paul was in jail multiple times and rejoiced in his suffering.

Edited to add a few more questions for Robert:

* If you had been born in the Middle East, in a place geographically and culturally isolated from any Christian influence, is it likely that you would have become a Christian?

Christianity began in the Middle East. I'm not sure if I understand the question.

* How many books which argue for atheism have you read? Name them (and be prepared to answer questions about any which you name).

I haven't read whole books on atheism, but I'm familiar with many of the views.

* Do you think that Christians should continue to seek truth and question their beliefs even after they have become Christians?

Yes. Christians shouldn't stop pursuing truth.

* Have you asked any atheists whether they have continued to seek truth and question their beliefs even after they have become atheists? What have they told you?

No, not formally. Most atheists do seek truth, but are reluctant to go to the source and origin.


Finally (for real this time ):

* You say that any religious belief is a risk. Do you think that belief in the Christian God is a risk worth taking? What about belief in the Muslim god?

A person cannot lose with Jesus. Jesus is reliable and worthy of trust.

Continue to seek and you will find,
Robert

Silent Dave

Okay, I'll take that as a yes. Can you recount a couple times when you have used the phrase "the way, the truth, the light" in discussion with a non-Christian theist?

Did you find those criteria in a book that was not written by a Christian apologist?

Had your studies told you that the message and resurrection of Jesus did not meet those criteria, would you have refrained from accepting them? If you were to learn today that you have been mistaken in thinking that they meet those criteria, would you then stop being a Christian?


So you're saying you place your own moral values over God's intentions, and would not have accepted Christianity if he brought a sword rather than peace to the world?


Let me rephrase the question, then: If you were to sit down, look at all the evidence objectively, and decide -- based on the facts, and your own reasoning -- that all the historical and philosophical evidence for God's existence were invalid, including the argument that "it is impossible for God not to exist," would you still believe in the Christian god?


Please answer the question.


I'm not sure if I can make it any more clear, but I'll try. I'm not sure when and where you were born, so I'll have to guess -- let's say, 1982, in North Carolina. If you had instead been born in 1982 in a remote region of Pakistan, is it likely that you would have become a Christian?


Why have you not read any whole books on atheism?


Even if they discover, as many Christians have, that Chrsitianity is not the truth?

Do you say the same about many Christians?

Then why did you say earlier that belief in Jesus is a risk?


Dave

St. Robert

Jesus is not the risk. Devoting yourself to anything particularly a worldview or belief involves risk.

With Jesus, I'm willing to risk being wrong about Him being the Lamb of God.

If I was forced to serve Allah as God, I would probably end-up rejecting Islam.

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

Silent Dave

You seem to be saying that belief in Jesus is a risk, albeit (in your opinion) a worthwhile one. Is that correct?

Do you intend to answer my other questions?


Dave

ManM

Brian63,
Looks like your question got lost up there.

Some things must be taken on faith because we have no evidence that a skeptic cannot reinterpret. Other points of theology must be rationally consistent with the articles of faith. And so faith plays the same role in Christianity that it does in metaphysical naturalism: it provides the beginnings of thought.

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: ManM ]</p>

sighhswolf

"Probably not, because they chose to gain power by two opposing means. Jesus gained power by becoming a victim. Muhammed gained power by being an agressor. Muhammed lived by the sword, Jesus did not."

I find this statement to be interesting.
Would you concede that even though you see jesus as a pacifist, those that formed the organized religious faith that utilizes his biblical teachings, have historically been some excessively violent people?

And do you put more importance on the teachings of jesus than what is recorded of his actions in biblical text?
You say jesus wasnt an aggressor and did not carry a sword.
And I concur that biblical text does not mention that jesus carried weapons.(that I know of)
But what it does show is that those closest to him during his ministry did carry weapons, and that he himself advocated the use of weapons to accomplish his goals.

"Think not that I have come to send peace. I came not to send peace, but a sword".
Matt.

Luke
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one".

It is recorded that when jesus was arrested, a sword was drawn and used to cut off the ear of one of the soldiers, sent to arrest him.

Now I have trouble visualizing jesus as a pacifist, or a "victim".
Victim to me indicates an action taken against an unwilling participant.
The imposition of a stronger force over a weaker force creating forced adherence to the will of the stronger.
Victim indicates that the suject has been mistreated and forced into actions that are not consistant with his own beliefs, or lifestyle.

If the divine plan indicated that this path was the correct one then we could hardly classify jesus as a "victim" since he already knew supposedly what was to happen and willingly let it
progress to the inevitable conclusion.
This is not a victim.

As far as jesus being a pacifist lets look at a couple of verses that I say disqualifies his philosophy as being pacifistic/nonviolent in nature.

"But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me."
Luke
I accept that this was a parable and wasnt what jesus actually taught his followers but you cannot discount the imagery that flows through this verse as pacifistic in nature.

"And if thy hand offend thee cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed than having two hands to go into hell into the fire that never shall be quenched".
Mark
Would a non-violent teacher use this kind of imagery to make his lesson points?
I dont see the author of HELL (jesus) as being non-violent and a pacifist.

When he is forced into an exchange with the temple priests and asked to explain his teachings and how they are supported by Hebrew law, he speaks in the following manner:

"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. You blind guides . . .they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. . . You blind Pharisee . . .For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanliness. Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. . . . You serpents, you brood of vipers."
I dont think that this language represents a non-violent god figure.

Whatever happened to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18, Matt. 22:39)?

The words in many cases do not ring truth or are not consistant with this actions.
"do not resist him who is evil . . . love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matt. 5:39,44)


Matt. 21:12-13 relates, "And Yeshu entered into the Temple and cast out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and seats of those who were selling doves. And he said to them, "it is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a robbers' den."

So the pacifist peace loving jesus ....
"made a scourge of cords and drove them all out" (John 2:15).

He did not seek to gain the attention of the moneychangers with soft language, and appeal to their religious nature to refrain from what he considered as conduct not glorifying the temple.

I think it is also encumbant upon us to examine jesus conduct in the temple, from another point of view.
Even if he had not resorted to a violent response to what he considered as a defiling of the temple,
if you read the Rabbi's commentaries explaining the event from the Hebrew standpoint it becomes clear that jesus had gotten angry and resorted to violent behavoir on a misinterpretation of Hebrew law.

In Deut. 14:22-23, G-d had ordained the law that every male Jew should come to Jerusalem at Passover time to offer "the increase of your seed" and "the tithe of your corn, wine and oil, and the first of your herd and flock."

In other words, the temple, aside from being simply a house of prayer was a house of sacrifice. This is clearly portrayed in the Bible.

Deut. 14:24-26 continues to give the ordinance for the one who does not live near Jerusalem at sacrifice time. How was he to carry all of his fruits and firstborns the long distances to Jerusalem? In Yeshu's day, there were Jews visiting the temple from as far away as Rome and Babylon. Torah law had foreseen their long distance trip and ordained:

"And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it…Then you shall turn it into money, bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place the L-rd, your G-d chooses. And spend the money on whatever you desire: oxen, sheep, wine, strong drink…and you shall eat there before the L-rd, your G-d and rejoice." (Deut. 14:24-26)

Here G-d has ordained that money be brought to his temple and there exchanged for the necessities of eating before the L-rd. Josephus, the Jewish historian, living at the time of the destruction of the temple writes that on an average Passover, there were over 250,000 sacrifices offered. Each sacrifice was for a group of ten, therefore, there must have been, at least, 2 1/2 million people in Jerusalem for an average Passover.

Being that the majority of these people were visitors, where were they supposed to purchase their offerings? Being that they came into Israel with foreign currency, where could they go to exchange it into local currency? Remember that there were no banks then.

In order to fulfill the Divine commandments to exchange the monies brought from afar, the temple itself, in accordance to Biblical law, not in violation of it, provided for the pilgrims the means to fulfill the Bible's commandments. In other words, the moneychangers and the sellers of doves where themselves fulfilling an important Biblical commandment.

And along came Yeshu.

Yeshu could not have acted alone in disturbing the entire system of the temple. He must have had the help of his disciples, who were more than just the twelve. Yeshu decides to take matters into his own hands, and again, shows his ignorance of scripture by misquoting the verse from Isaiah.

"Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar. For My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations." (Is. 56:6)

This is what Isaiah really said. Of course, G-d wants His sacrifices. After all, He did ordain them. And as for Yeshu's quote about the temple being a house of prayer? Here we see him misquoting this verse.

The words in Isaiah are speaking about messianic times. That is why Isaiah uses the words, "For My house will be a house of prayer". However, the emphasis is not that the temple is for prayer, but rather that in messianic days, even the Gentiles will acknowledge G-d's house in Jerusalem and come to pray there. Nowhere is Isaiah making a statement against animal sacrifice as Yeshu implies. On the contrary, Isaiah mentions sacrifice outright. Some-thing that Yeshu "forgot" to mention.

The above came from "A Torah View of
the Founder of Christianity"
A look at Yeshu haNotzri, the man, (the one whom the Christians believe to be their messiah)
in his own words and actions.
The works of Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok.

Now whether or not the above statement is in actuality valid I cannot know, but what I do know is that the writing indicates a man of temper and a propensity toward violent conduct.

I understand that christians view the verse containing jesus statement of bringing the sword as symbolic, fine if that is what you want to believe.
But it matters not what was said, it matters that the imagery used in the wording supposedly coming straight from the icons mouth flows with violent intent.
Believe jesus was non-violent if you want, I think the texts say otherwise......this man did essentially the same thing as the founder of Islam
except that it is not recored that he personally held the blade.
Wolf