What are
/r/DebateAChristian's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/DebateAChristian:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/DebateAChristian:
Oxford Dictionaries
The Free Dictionary
Encyclopædia Britannica
JustPaste.it
Merriam-Webster
Wiki Answers
Dictionary.com
Google Docs
Academia.edu
Google Play Books
ScienceDirect
Google Scholar
Quora
Scholarpedia
Thesaurus.com
The most popular reviews in /r/DebateAChristian:
> Not even Bart Ehrman would assert that with a straight face.
"Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write the Gospels." - Bart Ehrman, <em>Jesus, Interrupted</em> - page 5
In fairness, I don't know for certain what Mr. Ehrman's face looked like when he wrote that.
Every one of these cliche "gotcha" points on evolution have been plausibly explained. It just takes 5 mins of Google search to find out how statements like
> For example, a wing would have to become a non-functional leg or arm before becoming a wing
are just uttered from ignorance and lack of imagination.
How did wings evolve, given that they're not useful unless they're evolved enough to enable flight?
"Torrenting" is a very nice and efficient method of sharing files, and it has plenty of legitimate uses. It is not a synonym for "piracy". I frequently torrent files that are intended by their creators and copyright-holders to be shared free of charge (see https://www.archlinux.org/download/ for an example).
EDIT: That said, torrenting a copy of "God's Not Dead" would (at least at the time of this post) certainly be piracy.
Try reading Bart Ehrman's Forged.
You can also listen to this free online audio lecture series The History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament. Ehrman represents mainstream New Testament scholarship.
But I think when you see that stories were "embellished," you are mistakenly thinking that's a claim that manuscripts were changed, when the claim is the authors embellished stories that were originally told orally.
The manuscripts themselves were changed too, though. Not that it really matters. Faithful copying does not make the content true.
>God predestines everyone for his salvation, but we have the right to reject his predestination.
pre·des·tine (pr-dstn)
1. To fix upon, decide, or decree in advance; foreordain. 2. Theology To foreordain or elect by divine will or decree.
Adj. 1. predestined - established or prearranged unalterably; "his place in history was foreordained"; "a sense of predestinate inevitability about it"; "it seemed predestined since the beginning of the world"
foreordained, predestinate
sure, certain - certain to occur; destined or inevitable; "he was certain to fail"; "his fate is certain"; "In this life nothing is certain but death and taxes"- Benjamin Franklin; "he faced certain death"; "sudden but sure regret"; "he is sure to win"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/predestined
In Romans 9, Paul makes the analogy of the potter who makes pots, some for "special purposes" (glory) and some for "common use" (destruction). God is the potter who decides, in advance of making the pot, what the pot's purpose (fate) will be.
>God does not use force.
"But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:5)
Love categorized as a conscious experience that is a deep connection which elicits a comforting sensation involving two conscious organisms of higher brain function.
Neurotransmitters implicated in the sensation include vassopressin which is observed as heavily influencing pair bonding in mammals and oxytocin which is noted to have effects on maternal to offspring bonding.
edit: grammar. Also, feel free to correct me if my definition is not up to par.
The Art of War by Sun Tzu, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, A Vindication of the Rights of Women by Mary Wollstonecraft, The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine, The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli, The Republic by Plato.
Wiki.answers actually has a decent article about this issue. Thought I would post.
Yes, of course. I do not deny it. I just don't think it's the slightest bit remarkable. Lots of people have garnered meaning from Harry Potter, Dune, The Art of War, various other religions, and hell, I'm sure there are people who think Dan Brown has something smart to say. Transmitting meaning is what people write for, after all. As for symbolism, people have no trouble finding it even when writers don't intentionally put it there.
And there's countless work which people found deep, profound and useful and which has been extremely influential, yet now is rejected. Sigmund Freud for instance used to be held in very high regard, and now pretty much everything he's contributed has been thrown out.
So what would weaken it? Specifically? Give me a piece of evidence that would falsify ID.
And maybe you're just not familiar with what they're doing; they're making inorganic life possible, then letting it evolve!
I've often listened to Christians rationalize this apparent contradiction (not evaluating their beliefs with the same rigor as the beliefs of others) with a kind of stunned amazement.
This TED talk by Julia Sweeney describes it perfectly (from about 8 mins in): http://www.ted.com/talks/julia_sweeney_on_letting_go_of_god.html
> Apologists would dispute that there is no 'good' evidence for God. Most would either argue that the evidence is self-evidence/extremely obvious or that the evidence is merely sufficient/good. If you disagree that there exists any evidence, then you've broken with the apologetic line of thought further up the line than the free will question.
There have been multiple threads in /r/DebateAChristian, /r/DebateReligion and /r/DebateAnAtheist requesting evidence of any sort. Thus far, provided 2,000+ years, no one has one a science Nobel for religion for demonstrating anything. The best we have are stupid analogies and various attempts at hiding the flaws in the Cosmological Argument.
>"Belief without evidence" is a terrible definition of faith that no self-respecting apologist would use.
They can argue with Oxford and Merriam-Webster. Sadly, MacMillian and Cambridge both define "faith" as only applying to religion, which negate your definition. It is, depending on the dictionary, "any belief in a god" or "belief without proof".
>I personally think the apologist would have a better time arguing that the evidence is sufficient rather than excusing an inability to defend their claims. If they've granted the "there's no evidence" claim there's nothing really left to do.
Nothing left to do, except align your world-view to match reality.
> In hindsight, it was only a matter of time before a group of Christians attempted this on an industrial scale.
This is truly a fabrication of your imagination. Germany's Nazi culture was changed into a belief system the revolved around <em>Volk</em>. This system of belief does not jive with Christianity, it actually contradicts Christianities' fundamental values.
> The apocalypse that Christians inflicted on the Native Americans was so extensive and heinous that the term genocide is inadequate.
This is another example of you blaming the Christian philosophy on a belief system that does not jive. The Trail of Tears is an example of the American people resenting another race, because they had something American Western settlers wanted; Land. Christian philosophy teaches to share your wealth, take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, and NOT to envy someones possessions.
You are blaming Christian philosophy unjustly and have cited no sources in your claims. I suggest you bring in some type of evidence for your claims, as well as a full comprehensive understanding of Jewish culture and Hebrew language before you claim you can comprehend the old testament writings inside their context. If you cannot, I suggest you not make claims about the literature while being so sure of yourself.
After ignoring the incorrect parts noted in the snopes article, the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy still have more in common than the Elijah and Jesus accounts. Should a future historian show that Kennedy's assassination never happened using your same logic?
No, it can simply be a matter of making up your mind. This video does an excellent job of explaining why.
I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know of any evidence to support the existence of gods, therefore I don't believe in them. Should evidence be presented to support their existence, I will be willing to adjust my opinion if the evidence is sufficiently credible. That means I don't know 100% that gods don't exist, any more than I know 100% that you're a young white male on the Internet. Statistically you're far more likely to be a young white male than not, but that doesn't mean I'm omniscient. So I allow for a certain percentage of error in my knowledge, based on how often the claim has been proven wrong in the past.
You are mixing up the usages of that word. There are four separate usages of the word worship according to Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship). Three of which are relevant to this discussion (there is one which is used to describe a person of royal descent). The first two are in a specifically religious sense, and can only be used to describe the worship of a deity or a religious practice. The other relevant usage basically boils down to an obsession with an object or idea.
However even this usage isn't accurate. You are trying to conflate your religion with others' lack of religion. When I was a Christian, I worshiped the idea of god. When I stopped being a Christian I didn't replace that practice with something else. I just stopped being a Christian. Science is also at the foundation of your life. You are typing on a computer right now. You browse the internet on your mobile phone. When you are sick, you rely on advancements in modern medicine to cure you. These are all things provided to you by people following the scientific method. Do you worship science?
The only difference between you and I (and other atheists) is we lack your religion. We don't replace religion with some other obsession. I think the thing you need to understand is that atheists don't consider anything to be sacred. Atheists are generally skeptical, we understand that science can tell you that something is true with a certain degree of certainty. This means that our understanding can change based on new information.
The bottom line is it boils our blood when people try and claim that we have some kind of religion based around science. It's just not the case.
>I still have to show up to work on time each day. Believe me, if I could tell my boss I was late because the earth was 4.5 billion years old, then I would go with that in a heart beat.
16 Scandalous Excuses and not one of them changes that the earth is still 4.5 billion years old.
And if those don't work you might try this group of 10 Best and Worst, and while they won't make the decision for you between evolution and ID, maybe they will get you off the hook with your boss.
The premise of your argument is reliant on various dating techniques, which when considered from a non-uniformitarian point of view, cannot be relied on for Absolute dating. I would consider them accurate, however, for relative dating. To understand why the Global flood (catastrophism) actually FITS THE FOSSIL RECORD BETTER than the uniformitarian viewpoint just checkout this recent documentary, filled entirely with PHD's and other highly credentialed scientists in their respective fields...
>The fourth deity would be Lucifer - the 'villainous god' of the bible. I mean if you think about it. Other ancient religions had/have villainous gods that the people didn't worship,
In the Book of Job, Satan was an angel (a "son of God") who conspired with God to torment Job. Then the Israelites came into contact with Zoroastrianism via Cyrus the Great. The key belief of Zoroastrianism is that there is a good god versus an evil god. Satan became that evil god.
>Under the influence of Zoroastrianism, Satan, the adversary, probably evolved into the archdemon.
The whole scene with Pilate has been described in the literature as a "coup de theatre." Pilate is portrayed in the scene as a stylized Caesar character, the back and forth between him and the crowd evoking a gladiatorial event. ("What will you then that I do unto him whom you call...?" Pilate in Mk. 15:20 & the question Caesar asks the crowd at the end of every game.) Interestingly, he was stylistically portrayed as Caesar in much early Christian art.
Moreover, Pilate is an archetypal "weak fool" character from Jewish (and lots of other) literature -- just like the characters of Ahasuerus (from Esther) and Herod. He improvidently turns over his prerogative to the crowd (or Esther or Herodias' daughter) and is thereby manipulated.
In the Gospels, Pilate is thoroughly portrayed as a literary figure. See more here.
Yet Pilate existed.
The point: being a literary figure doesn't preclude one from being a historical one.
> Even an Armenian could see that, I would think.
Perhaps you meant an <em>Arminian</em> rather than an Armenian.
> It's also composed of the specific relata which uniquely obtain in a computer
I looked up the word 'relatum' and I still don't understand your phrase 'specific relata which uniquely obtain'.
Would you please rewrite your sentence so that it is easier for readers to understand?
According to merriam-webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
faith:
allegiance to duty or a person
fidelity to one's promises
belief and trust in and loyalty to God
belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
firm belief in something for which there is no proof
complete trust
something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially a system of religious beliefs
Oh whoops! So sorry! I thought you were responding to a different comment of mine. *cough* *ahem* *awkwardly pulls collar*
>It's no coincidence that several people have pointed out the same fallacy in your argument though.
You're right. It isn't a coincidence. There is a very good reason for it.
There can only be special pleading when something arbitrarily escapes a rule that applies to everything else of that type. But a cosmological argument, for example such as Leibniz's, postulates that all contingents must have some explanation, and that that explanation must be something non-contingent (otherwise the explanation would be circular).
I don't agree with your search result conclusions.
A Google search for "~real christian*" site:reddit.com/r/atheism yields 993 results with 223,953 readers.
A Google search for "~real christian*" site:reddit.com/r/christianity yields 93 results with 17,092 readers.
Thus:
4.4 "real christian" comments per 1000 r/atheism readers
5.4 "real christian" comments per 1000 r/christianity readers
The New Testament was put together by the Roman Church. They just took what they found fitting to expand their power and suffocate other little churches, beliefs and sects.
Why is the third letter of the Corinthians not included? Or Mary's Gospel?
It was contradictory and a game of power.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=discrimination
>It especially annoys me when racists are accused of 'discrimination.' The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one 'race' to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination.
~Christopher Hitchens
>This is a lie.
How is a lack of belief a claim?
This is Oxford Dictionaries (the academically respected source) definition of atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (source).
Do you also believe that not collecting stamps is a hobby?
>It's lazy, dishonest and shames the great atheists/atheism of the past... And it's also a big reason why this sub will never be what it's intended to do be.
So, what other things do you believe atheists have ruined for you in your life? Someone once told me that atheists also make babies cry and are the reason that weekends are sometimes rainy when it's sunny during the working week. What are your thoughts on this?
I'll give you a down-vote because I believe your claims have contributed less than nothing to this debate... and I will review my decision if you can substantiate all of the "stuff" you claimed.
Each person is a unique assemblage of parts that will never occur again in the same setting. Given that, it's infinitely valuable.
Your thought process is abhorrent. If you advocate genocide because "God said so" and human life as being worthless, I feel justified calling you psychopathic.
> You're going to hear a lot of talk about "macro evolution" and "micro evolution". These terms are only ever used by creationists
I disagree. Google scholar results for macroevolution and microevolution.
A genetic algorithm is a very primitive form of evolution that seems to create solutions to complex problems from a blank slate. These have proven themselves to be quite remarkable and they produce some amazing results when applied to problems they're ideally suited towards.
There is no "intelligent" intervention here, only genetic selection pursuing a particular goal, or natural selection in other environments where the genetic creatures are given free reign and no particular goal.
These applications of genetic mixing and selection can be tested trillions of times per session. Even a simple example of evolving a "car" is educational as it demonstrates in rough terms how natural selection works.
You're presuming that information comes from non-information, but this is not the case. What's happening is order from disorder, or useful information is being extracted from random information. It's not really being created or destroyed, only transformed.
Number of people who've died while human life moved on:111+-5bn.
Number of people who've died and taken all of human life with them:0
Need more?
> An atheist, by definition, concretely believes there to be no God
No.
For example: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
There are two definitions in there? One is your "denies the existence", one is OPs "disbelieves the existence" (this is a rejection of the claim to existence, not the claim of a lack of existence).
This has a more thorough treatment.
Since there are two definitions, you can't appeal to just one of them conclusively for the entire set.
So, no. An atheist need not have a claim on origins.
EDIT: And even going with the hard definition of "There is definitively no God", that doesn't mean you have to have an answer to origins... "I don't know" is a perfectly valid position to the not necessarily related question.
>You do though :)
that's not a very nice smile, directly after it, you tell me I'm committing a terrible sin against the master of the universe, and you're going to pay for it dearly after death.
I wonder how God feels about such an attitude, aren't you supposed to pity me or something? Not rejoice in my damnation?
Back to the crux of the matter:
>How do you know that I have no faith?
You can't have faith in certainty, faith is for the things where there is doubt.
The definition of faith is: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
In you, faith is contradicted by your knowledge that Christianity is true.
You cannot have faith in something you know as certainty.
And of course you can't, if it was self-evident that Christianity were true, there would be no Christianity, there would only be people who all knew from where they were created.
>My back of the envelope calculations give the probability of 11 simultaenous hallucinations to be something like 10-44 , which is insanely small. I don't know what a good prior for the resrection is though
Hallucinations occur all the time, we have plenty of evidence for this. Even simultaneous hallucinations have been documented (the Miracle of the Sun, for instance). We have no documented cases of bodily resurrection ever occurring, and since a miracle is by definition the least probable occurrence, any other explanation is more likely to be correct.
An interesting topic. To the contrary, I am of the firm belief that Christians in the west ought to focus more on giving money to the right organizations for maximum efficiency in doing good. A good resource for doing this (and the argument itself) is a book called, "Doing Good Better".
Basically, we in the west, due to our financial strength, can do much more good by giving money to charities that are efficiently using that money to save lives and ease suffering. Essentially, by working my normal job, and giving 10% of my money away, I can pay for several people to work in Africa, India, or South America who would actually do a better job than I could.
Personally, I do think that god wants us to use our heads to come up with the most effective way to ease suffering. I am though, also a proponent of short term missions that effectively engage westerners in seeing the suffering in the world, and help them to empathize. I also do not see giving money as a substitute for doing other 'good deeds' closer to home.
There has been research done showing that having religious symbols on prominant display can subtly affect how people behave and influence their decisions. I don't have a citation to hand, but I think it was covered in "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely.
It won't affect everyone, but could influence enough people to change the outcome of an election.
Again, I don't think that most atheists are comfortable being amoral. How do you view Christian morality as being different that societal morality? Can you give an example?
I suspect you were skeptical in the first place. That's kind of the point though. If you already believe or are leaning towards belief you're far more likely to ascribe significance to insignificant events.
See symbolic interactionism and patternicity.
>God blessed virtually every country with abundant natural resources, and birthed each person with the grace to succeed.
I think you need to travel more. This may have been the case at one point in time, but is laughable today. The USA has been at war 222 years since 1776. It destabilizes other nations, and then cries foul when those peoples who's lives have been torn up seek refuge. These nations and people are NOT birthed with grace to succeed. Their success may lie in immigration, which you vote to control.
Taking away social programs that help marginalized communities does not help forced born babies in any way. Once they're born, you do not care about them. You know Trump switched sides on the topic of abortion to land the evangelical vote. You know his tax cuts benefit the wealthy.
Sharia law is already in America. You have laws based on religious text. You can call it another name, but that is the gist of Sharia law. USA is not a Christian nation. How would you feel if rules from other religions were written into law? Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6761840
>I just see this as an assertion; if it's a self-mover then it must be alive.
You're right, it takes a lot more argumentation to even address a question like this. Plato is simplistic in his arguments but gets at things that can be fleshed out by later thinkers. His simple version is just asking you what you would think if, for example, you saw a paper bag on the sidewalk moving on its own. You check the wind, and its not moving because it's being blown. It's moving against the wind, say. This way, then that way. Wouldn't your reaction be, "Oh! There must be something alive inside of it!"
That's what he's getting at. Living things are self-movers, and non-living things can only be moved by other factors. (Even spontaneous things would be moved movers in this sense, as they are just being moved by some force that happens to be located inside of them.)
But later thinkers fleshing this out, like Aristotle, would define life as anything capable of "immanent causation": causation that begins and ends within the thing itself, contributing to its own activities and perfection. This is not much different from the dictionary definition.
>Also, self-mover?...Isn't it an unmoved mover?
>It is to be noted, however, that Plato, who held that every mover is moved [Phaedrus], understood the name motion in a wider sense than did Aristotle. For Aristotle understood motion strictly...Plato understood by motion any given operation, so that to understand and to judge are a kind of motion...Plato accordingly said that the first mover moves himself because he knows himself and wills or loves himself. In a way, this is not opposed to the reasons of Aristotle. There is no difference between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle.
Christians generally don't value the human adult female at 30 shekels, which translates to about $13000, so that should tell you how we feel about ancient jewish penal codes as a way of determining the value of a human life.
> So where does the idea that life begins at conception come from?
Ok, fine. You agree that a human baby counts as a person and if the mother killed it it would be murder, right? However, under your theorem, a fetus 8 months in the womb is not a person and the mother killing it is not murder. Clearly, there should be some physiological or philosophical difference between the two beings in order for you to be willing to allow the mother to kill it. Where does that difference come from? Difficulty: Use no arbitary criteria (such as 'because I said so') or inconsistent criteria (such as 'if it can breath on its own', which would allow us to murder people on breathing machines).
We are getting off topic here. I asked if Matthew 5:27-29 applies in this situation, you said no, I asked why and I still have not received an answer. Can you answer that please?
> How can you know that the average gay person who chooses not to act on his or her desires has more of a struggle than the average straight person.
I don't, but I am not the one denying a gay person equal rights. I would posit that the person who is denying someone's rights has the burden of proof. So I ask you how can you know that the average gay person who chooses not to act on his or her desires does not have more of a struggle than the average straight person.
> She does, but you have to fight where the battle is at the moment.
Same-sex marriage is where the "battle" is at the moment? Really? So you are saying fighting same-sex marriage is more important than combating poverty, war, famine, it is more important than the current situation in "Israel", in Russia/Ukraine, it is more important than human rights abuses and war-crimes, more important than the battle on clerical child sexual abuse? I could go on, the list is practically inexhaustible. If this is truly your view, then this debate is truly pointless. Do you speak for yourself on this or the rest of the Catholic Church as well?
> What do you mean by "nature"?
From http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
Nature - The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.
Sexual Orientation - A person’s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.
I would regard a person's sexual identity as a basic or inherent feature, character or quality of that person, wouldn't you?
>Genetics is a large topic so I'd had to know what specific claim you are making.
There's a lot of information out there. Jerry Coyne wrote a wonderful book called Why Evolution is True that would be of great benefit to you. You can also check this out.
I've not got the time or the patience to walk you through the debunking (ugh, I hate that word) of the Genesis account. Even if I did, I have little confidence that you'd consider it with an open mind. I will encourage you to read things that challenge your worldview from peer-reviewed, respected scientists and subject experts who have found, with full certainty, the Genesis account could not have happened as it is purported in the Bible. Heck, I bet 70% of the Christians on this very forum don't believe Genesis is a literal account.
>There are several scientific journals that affirm creation. Journal of Creation and Answers Research Journal come to mind.
I said peer-reviewed. Not peer-reviewed by other creationists. These journals have had their claims denounced time and time again by respected subject experts. That you come to the table with this as your source just tells me how little interest I should have in continuing this conversation. It's disappointing, really. I hoped you'd have something new to bring to the table.
Here's a good starting point, by Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True.
So you have the evidence from genetics as well as an understanding of evolutionary biology: there never was a first human. Richard Dawkins explains this succinctly here:
Now to be fair to Theistic Evolutionists, they claim that at some point God chose Adam and gave him a soul. To which I reply what about Adam's parents? No soul for them? Too bad. So God is the "Soul Nazi" (Seinfeld "Soup Nazi")./s
> I often hear that America was founded on "Judeo-Christian principles" but have yet to hear a compelling example of those "principles" that apply to the government of the US.
"Judeo-Christian" is a very recent invention.
Before that, people were well satisfied with just "Christian".
I think we have to suppose that Jesus (or the evangelist) was using a figure of speech that would not have sounded like nonsense to his audience.
If he can say, "The gates of 'x' shall not prevail," it must mean that those to whom he was speaking would have been able to call to mind a situation (imaginative or otherwise) in which gates could be said to "prevail".
"Gates", then, must refer symbolically to some other thing, rather than to the gates, as a door or entry way, themselves.
In the book, "<strong>Second Temple Studies III: Studies in Politics, Class, and Material Culture</strong>", we read:
>The city gates represent a military border that enclose the national space. One enters the gates, not so much to enter the city perse, but to proceed to the power that defines the nation. ... One temple gate from the neo-Babylonian city does maintain, and possibly increase, its power. The east gate of the temple becomes the gate of the king, an institution that embodies the royal power over society.
Second Temple Studies III: Studies in Politics, Class, and Material Culture
edited by Philip R. Davies, John M. Halligan; p. 42
So according to this reading Jesus would have meant--and his hearers would have understood him to mean--the power of Hades, with all of her authority and her legions. The gates are symbolic of this power.
I keep my answer to this one simple:
No. Not at all. Even the Gospels contradicted themselves in between each other so much that most texts had to be cut out by the Roman Church (the highest authority back then) to be somewhat believable.
Here: Lost Gospels
>While some Baptists take this position, more Christians would say the Bible contains the word of God.
"Since the Bible is the Word of God, it can be said that every canonical text is for us a Divine lesson, a revelation, even though it may have been written with the aid of inspiration only, and without a revelation properly so called. For this cause, also, it is clear that an inspired text cannot err. That the Bible is free from error is beyond all doubt, the teaching of Tradition."
Q: How does one "join" the Greek Orthodox Church?
A: You must believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_join_the_Greek_Orthodox_Church
>"Apriori" is not English, nor is it even a word.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/a-priori http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a%20priori
You don't seem to be familiar with how the phrase works in terms of English as you disagree with the definition. You don't seem to know that it is in the English lexicon either.
>[strawman removed - I do think people have private data and have given you no reason to believe otherwise] You're just blithering.
The very statement you quoted disagrees with your use of private data, labeling it as subjective. It looks like you can't understand that private data, being the result of sensory reception, must be measured, tested, reproduced etc. to be public data - and that introspection fails to meet these criteria.
You don't impose those scientific criteria, so you're not being scientific (in terms of the English meaning of scientific - maybe you're a Scientist in your own language, but I don't speak Geoshish).
>Evil is taught as the absence of good, and not equal
Incorrect.
Doesn't matter, both good and evil both share a context are are therefore counterparts because words have meanings.
Here is the academically respected Oxford Dictionaries definition of the word counterpart:
Counterpart (noun) A person or thing that corresponds to or has the same function as another person or thing in a different place or situation. (source)
Notice how words have meanings and the meaning of counterpart does not require an opposite.
Is that all you've got, because this is getting very silly now.
If that was your final post, then can you do me a favor? Next time you are harnessing telepathic Christian super powers to communicate with the creator of the universe, can you tell the "gib guy" that /u/urgentthingstodo says hi?
>Fail on one of these points, and the contradiction is alive and well. Have fun!
I think you're a little overexcited or overstimulated.
Definition of GOD: a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; (source)
So, yes. According to English language, Satan qualifies as a god because His is a superhuman being that does have power over human fortunes.
>Has unconditional love. <Insert bible text here>
I submit the entire Christian bible... that nowhere does it suggest that Satan has ever judged anyone of being unworthy of His kingdom. Such unconditional acceptance of all races, religions and sexualities could be an indication of unconditional love also.
> You are confusing allowable and acceptable, in my opinion.
<em>Allowable</em> is a synonym of <em>acceptable.</em>
If you are using these words in a different way than the standard, you should stop and define them for us.
> To have a disbelief in gods is a belief that they don't exist.
That is incorrect. A disbelief is a refusal or reluctance to believe, which is not the same as a belief in the opposite. To give you an example, if I give you a box and tell you that there's gold in the box, in the absence of evidence you would probably disbelieve that claim. That doesn't mean you believe the box doesn't contain gold.
> An agnostic is a skeptic, withholding judgement until evidence shows them to believe that a god does or does not exist.
What you describe is an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge only: an agnostic is someone who thinks the existence of gods is not knowable. But they're not necessarily witholding judgement: what they actually believe in regard of that position can make them theist or atheist agnostics. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism, and it is not mutually exclusive with either terms.
To illustrate with the example of the box of gold, an agnostic would be someone who think we can't know what's in the box, no more, no less. An agnostic theist would be someone who thinks we can't know, but still has faith that there's gold in the box (what can I say, they trust me). An agnostic atheist would be someone who thinks we can't know, but they don't trust me and disbelieve (= refuse to believe) there's gold in the box. A stronger atheist may even hold the position that the lack of evidence is enough to assume that there's no gold in the box. But those who "only" disbelieve already match the definition of atheism.
> Athiests have made that choice
I agree, though we're not talking about the same choice. An atheist made the choice to disbelieve the existence of gods, but not necessarily to believe in their inexistence.
I don't see that as "on the fence". The fence is "I'm not sure if I believe or not". Atheism is "I refuse to believe".
It's self evidentially a choice or we wouldn't be having this discussion about it.
> talk to the people who have held their child for hours and ask 'is it worth it?'
That is ridiculously subjective and cannot possibly apply to everyone. This is an appeal to emotion, not an argument.
What medical definition? It's what the word means, if you have a problem with the definition that's on you and doesn't invalidate my point in the slightest.
This page at dictionary.reference.com has four definitions of blasphemy,
of which the first is "impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things".
The sun is not a sacred thing, so I don't think praising it falls under blasphemy.
See also the section on that page about "blasphemy in the Bible" (scroll down as needed).
There's one really clear reason why the bishops of Jerusalem were Greeks then: Jews were forbidden from entering Aelia Capitolina upon pain of death.
Aside from that... without referencing Acts (which you reject as nonhistorical), what evidence does either of us have to make a historical case?
1 Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray as John taught his disciples.” 2 And he said to them, “When you pray, say: “Father hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread 4 and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.”
>What the fuck? I never said that.
You said that if they found the physical body of Jesus (which means they could somehow ID it) you wouldn't stop being a Christian, but instead would shift from the belief of a literal resurrection to a spiritual one. The later being a belief that is immune from any physical evidence. All that sounds to me is that you're willing to move the goalposts into "you can never disprove my beliefs" if they should ever be threatened with some actual evidence. If I'm mis-stating your position, could you give me an example of some natural evidence that would require you to abandon your faith?
>Not even a few bones? Not even a substance that could be determined to be from a human?
This answer low-balls it because it's referring to outdoor decay, but even in a coffin bones would be completely gone within a few hundred years. It's been over 2000 years: it's long gone, if it was ever there.
>The visions could have happened and been of a spiritual Jesus.
But you do recognize how problematic this is, right? People have "spiritual visions" of being invaded by aliens as well, but we don't take them seriously. Does having a vision of a human make it any more "real"? I dream of loved ones that have passed away all the time, but I recognize that they're not literally there: it's a product of my mind (albeit a very warm one).
> I'm going to need you to define what you mean when you say "evidence" - because I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
Agreed, that seems to be part of the problem. As I see it, you are using a single, very narrow definition of 'evidence' that really has no place outside tightly controlled experimental conditions. There are many definitions of 'evidence' more appropriate to this question. Have a look.
For everything I believe to be true, there must be evidence I accept as valid, probative, and persuasive. That it cannot be reproduced under identical conditions, or that you don't find it persuasive aren't really relevant to its value as evidence.
> I'm referring to testable observations that can be demonstrated to be true within a reasonable degree of certainty. "Evidence sans falsifiability" doesn't make sense to me.
Life isn't a laboratory. This standard is of little value outside that setting.
Yup.
In a secular context, subjective:
>Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions
In a religious context, subjective:
>Based on or influenced by God's personal feelings, tastes, or opinions
See how it doesn't really change? Now, there are those who feel that "morals" apply to God. In other words, the statement "God is good" could either mean that God conforms to God's will (which is obviously just circular nonsense), or that God conforms to a higher standard. However, if God conforms to a standard, and he is merely being a messenger for those standards, then it doesn't address the issue. Man is conforming to God's interpretation of morality. If it could then be said that morals are objective, then they would only be objective if we followed the morals themselves, rather than God's interpretation of the morals themselves.
So pretty much no matter what, "God's word" is subjective. Either subjective to himself, or subjective to a higher standard. take your pick.
> Supernatural in what way?
I'm not sure I get what you mean by this question...
Supernatural - (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
> there is nothing to imply there can't be natural explanations
I fundamentally agree. I just don't think the explanations are able to be subjected to the scientific method - and therefore don't count as evidence or proof in any sort of a scientific discussion.
The incarnation shows us quite clearly that God actually enjoys (prefers?) working through the natural world he created. In Jesus, God entered into the natural in order to redeem the natural. And this isn't just true in Jesus - it's true in baptism, (his grace is communicated through the water), it's true in the Eucharist, (grace communicated through bread and wine), etc.
To a Christian, pretty much everything is miraculous or supernatural on some level, (He made it out of nothing!), so it's not surprising or in any way troubling that 'supernatural' events would have 'natural' explanations. However, that doesn't change the fact that you can't subject the supernatural to natural methods of observation and testing.
Also, your flair makes me smile... :)
Okay. Try punch someone with brittle bone disease and then punch the Queen. Who experienced more pain? Which of these acts are considered worse objectively?
You're also ignoring the emotional pain that God has to endure. God created us and trusted us, and every time we sin, it's a rebellion against him. If you told your wife not to cheat on you and she does, how would you feel?
Just because Jesus was healed from his death, doesn't make his death any less meaningful. You make it sound like what was required for the remission of sin is to have someone sleep eternally. Most people associate death with pain, and Jesus did endure the pain of crucifixion.
I'm not sure you understand what a sacrifice is. A sacrifice is something you lose. The pain Jesus felt is a sacrifice just as the pain you feel when working out is a sacrifice to build muscle.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sacrifice
False on all accounts.
Kalam is regularly argued back and forth in prestigious (read: Oxford) peer reviewed philosophy journals, and even Astrophysics journals.
Youtube is the non-peer reviewed wilds, where idiots reign on both sides of the fence.
Https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey
Here's with Wikipedia page for Massey
If you want to read his book with these assertions in it it's called The Natural Genesis. I've not read it in its entirety.
If you want to see if the claims are true, the best way is to look up the Egyptian Book of the Dead online.
If you want a quick rundown, watch this kinda funny (or not, whatever) video:
It's actually what prompted me to research the topic myself.
This is a good explanation of how the Super Avenger God is different from the Biblical God, who changes his mind, who is surprised that Judah doesnt repent (in Jeremiah), and who is sorry for creating people. See "And God Changed His Mind"
I don't think there's any question of "impasse" or "no impasse" because PSR is a massive topic, the questions of compatibility with rationalism and Thomism, which is inherently empiricist, etc etc etc. I suppose you could throw this on your Amazon wishlist, but personally I don't have the time right now to dive deep into PSR stuff...
Man, that whole list is completely wrong. The list should be edited to anonymous, pseudonymous, and pseduepigrahs.
But on topic, if we are to accept that there are many biblical authors, We know that god has interacted with them all. I believe some, if not all directly. The only silent covenant I'm aware of where God beamed something into someones head, is Josiah, but he didn't write any books.
So god is directly involved with the authors if we are to accept the traditional attributed authors. So he's sort of coauthoring a book. Like what celebs/important figures do now when they write a tell all book. Like "The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley"
That was a thick read. But I guess I can sympethize now. If we define "consequence" as broadly as "what an action will do", then yes, all moral theories differentiate prescribed actions that way. So to avoid a tautology, consequentialism needs to remain concerned with only the final state of affairs to have meaning, and this also stays in line with how it's been used historically. But this is obviously insufficient to explain morality for the reasons you mentioned.
So I guess it's time for me to pick up a copy of Nicomachean Ethics and become a virtue ethicist. Now that that's settled...
> But there are many instances of altruism to call which selfish is abhorrent. So egoism is incompatible with the existence of real altruism.
Can you give me some examples? Moreover, how can any moral theory provide reason(s) for a prescription without ultimately appealing to self-interest?
And I just got where you got the Syndrome thing from. I guess Pixar movies are a lot more meaningful than I thought.
> We don't talk about how much of a literalist people are in reading the "Lord of The Rings", or in reading "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" Both of those books have areas of narrative and instruction, transcriptions of songs, quotations from other sources, etcetera. And everybody everybody everybody intuitively understands that that is okay. Books do that.
Actually, when reading a book like Lord of The Rings, we do read a lot of it literally. At least I do. When I was reading that Legolas was so light that he was running on snow, I was taking that literally, that he could step on the snow and not sink in. When I was reading that some character vanished, I would literally take that literally too, that he suddenly disappeared. When Gandalf's staff was emitting light, I was imagining light literally beaming out of his wooden staff. And so on and so forth. And I read the Bible in the same way. If it describes a snake talking to Eve, then I imagine a literal snake talking to an actual woman, and I don't read it as metaphor.
Also, the thing with metaphors and analogies is that they are made so that the reader or listener can better understand what is being said, by understanding (and agreeing) with a simplified example that is meant to reflect the more complex concept that is being discussed. But since we cannot understand even the analogies and metaphors of the bible, as in many of the analogies and parables seem to have really bad advice, so what does that do to the greater concept?
Did you ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which was a philosphical treatise on what is "quality".
Just because a noun is abstract doesn't mean its magical. I think there is such a thing as courage, ability, crime, democracy, hatred, discipline and a lot of other abstract nouns. But I don't think of any of them as being some "magical force" that comes from god, rather they're just effects that we see in the real world.
So don't try to pass off that "Ahah! You believe something is good, therefore you do believe in a God" nonsense, when most of us are able to see something as good or bad for what it is without introducing magic into it at all.
I sure do. To me it is self-evident/properly basic that moral wrongness and rightness are feelings, similar to feelings of beauty (e.g., she is beautiful and X is wrong are equivalent in this sense). As the philosopher John Mackie pointed out:
>We need morality to regulate interpersonal relations, to control some of the ways in which people behave towards one another, often in opposition to contrary inclinations. We therefore want our moral judgements to be authoritative for other agents as well as for ourselves... Aesthetic values are logically in the same position as moral ones; much the same metaphysical and epistemological considerations apply to them. But aesthetic values are [given less authority] just because the motives for [for doing so] are less compelling. (Source: Ethics, p.43)
>Perhaps the reason atheists attack the Kalam is that nearly every evidentiary apologist uses it?
I don't know the reason, but I highly suspect David Hume is involved.
The Enochian Scriptures, the story of enoch in the Bible. https://www.amazon.de/Buch-Enoch-Andreas-Gottlieb-Hoffmann/dp/3849685276/ref=asc_df_3849685276/?tag=googshopde-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=546396273243&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=12069657618455157136&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&a...
>I'm not changing the topic. I'm simply asking how six non-eyewitness writings talking about the beliefs of christians are evidence that Jesus actually existed?
Erhman explains this well in the article above and in his book Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
> What do you mean?
Why else would God stick human beings into a place of eternal torment? Obviously God must derive some satisfaction from it, which makes him a sadist.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sadist
> 2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty. > 3. Extreme cruelty.
> If suffering has no moral component, please help me understand why being a sadist is "wrong".
This is a disturbing question. Are you trying to absolve God of his sadism by saying it isn't wrong because I believe suffering has no moral component? If there is a God, and he invented hell, then he is a sadist. If there isn't a God, then there isn't a hell, and suffering definitely has no moral component; it is just a part of our shared existence in a universe that we have evolved in (which is what I believe). Furthermore, if there is a God and suffering is a tool for our education, as you seem to believe, this also means God is a sadist. If God wants us to learn from suffering, then clearly our suffering gives him pleasure in that we learning something from it, which again, makes God a sadist.
Do animals learn from suffering?
Some redditors may be familiar with the TV series "The Good Place".
Michael Schur is a TV producer who made that show, and he wrote a book "How To Be Perfect - The Correct Answer To Every Moral Question".
I got a copy from my local library and haven't read it yet.
It's probably somewhat humorous. However, one reviewer on Amazon said:
> I found much of the humor flippant to the point of annoying. I also felt the book contains a few too many cheap shots at real-world folks whose conduct the author considers morally repugnant. Most seriously, I think the book’s tone and content is too politically polarizing. The author leans to the left politically (as do I) -- fair enough. But he seems blind to the possibility that there are thoughtful people of good will who see things differently. He seems to presume (unconsciously?) that liberal values are morally superior, spends too much time outlining standard defenses of those values in a tone that suggests no reasonable person could disagree, and is often dismissive of conservative views.
Wrong. QE allows you to transmit data faster than the speed of light.
When you flip the spin on a QE'd particle, its bonded "twin" particle is also affected instantly no matter how far away it is.
Transmitting that event from A to b with no time passing is HELLA faster then the the speed of light.
143Km in zero time. vs .0004766666 seconds
QE is at least 4 orders of magnitude faster than light.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/quantum-teleportation-over-143km-smashes-distance-record/
"Paul never mentions his age in the Bible, however, what is known is this: He was a 'young man' when he persecuted jesus, right up to the point of his conversion in 36 C.E. By Jewish standards of the time, as according to the Mishna, a young man is one who is 30 or older, so at the time of his conversion who have been any where between six years younger or 24 years older than Jesus. However, he also mentions in his letters that in 55 C.E. he was an 'old man', and by those day's standards and old man was 60 or older. In addition to some other scholarly speculation, it is generally acknowledged that his birth date is probably unkowable with any defenitivenes, but it is assumed that he was born probably around 5 C.E., making him slightly younger than Jesus."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_old_was_apostle_Paul_at_his_conversion
>A thesis is defined as >> "a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved."
>premise : a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion
>thesis : the main idea, opinion, or theory of a person, group, piece of writing, or speech:
Not an argument. It's a claim that must be argued.
>A thesis and an argument are synonyms
I will require you provide a citation for that.
A thesis, barring what one writes in academia for a degree, is a claim, not an argument.
>Well the only vehicle is exhaustive argument when a shorter argument would inevitably lead to accusations of "cherry picking"
Then maybe it's not suitable for this debate format? Not everything is and that's okay.
>Providing evidence isn't biasing a debate.
It absolutely is if you provide so much claimed evidence that no one can reasonably formulate a rebuttal outside of an essay format.
>A shotgun argument is providing many arguments, I've made one and provided a bunch of evidence for it.
Ignoring the fact that no argument was given, each heading is in fact a supporting argument for the thesis. Each heading could be argued independently.
>You have yet to address a glaring problem, which is, as has happened COUNTLESS times before, a reduced argument leads to the accusation of cherry picking and nothing else.
Why would I need to address that? Is that response reasonable? If not, then why should it matter?
https://www.quora.com/How-old-was-Mary-mother-of-Jesus-when-she-gave-birth-to-Jesus
above says 10-14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)
above says 12-14
Basically it says that tradition in that time was to marry after puberty, which for women was around 12-14 but could have been as early as 10. We don't know the full age, only that she was married which during that time happened when they reached adult, which was marked by puberty.
My points are also really simple:
saying that something "is an abstract concept that exists in our minds" doesn't affect my criticism to your first question (or at least I think so). Unless you are ready to openly say that Love, Justice, Truth and the relationship with your wife don't really exist (and most important of all, to say this in front of her). Or provide me "demonstrable evidences" for them.
the fact that Love, Justice, etc, and any relation are "abstract concepts that exist in our minds" is somewhat reductive in my opinion. I bet that there are actions, objects, memories etc that comes from the love for your wife. It's kinda strange to reduce Love just to "an abstract concept" since, It exists somewhere.
I wouldn't be afraid to tell to tell that God is somewhat abstract: numbers are abstract, laws of physics are "abstracts", this doesn't mean that they are less important than concrete ones. One definition of abstract is : disassociated from any specific instance. Another way to say this is Absolute (from latin absolvō: “loosen, set free, complete”). Yes. most of all I would not be afraid at all, even on a theological level (even if I'm not a theologian at all so I may be wrong) to say that God is absolute.
Your flair is also incoherent. Look at the definition of Agnostic.
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
How can this be true and you be a follower of Christ? You can't be both. Your flair doesn't inform who you are, it confuses and misinforms who you are. Is there a flair for muslim christian? For buddhist christian? Why not?
> Which of these definitions or these synonyms best describes "guide" in reference to your point above?'
I'd maybe go with #2 from here, an act of making decisions about something. Natural selection decides which genes live on. Obviously not consciously, but I think the parallel is easy to understand.
>And remember evolution relies on random mutations. how can something be guided when the direction it is going is determined by randomness?
Just because random mutations are one essential part of the whole, that doesn't make the direction of the entire process random – you already correctly stated yourself what the direction is instead determined by.
>This exactly is the "guidance" you think is missing.
I don't see how this constitutes guidance.
This is like saying the lotto ping pong balls are "guided" by the physical laws.
Which of these definitions or these synonyms best describes "guide" in reference to your point above?'
And remember evolution relies on random mutations. how can something be guided when the direction it is going is determined by randomness?
This is so old. Messianic Jews have answered this over and over again.
I would recommend Dr. Michael Brown's excellent five volume series (over 1,000 pages) called "Answering Jewish objections to Jesus."
I have all 5 volumes of his books, which again show how these types of objections are not correct.
https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Jewish-Objections-Jesus-Historical/dp/080106063X
They really are excellent resources.
Additionally, in Israel, there are Messianic Jews who clearly see Yeshua in the text, and who read the Hebrew fluently as their native language.
They have some excellent material as well. https://www.oneforisrael.org/category/apologetics/
To answer your question, Mary (Miriam was her actual name) was a decendant of David. And yes, daughters could inherit anything if there were no sons alive."
"Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter." Torah. Numbers 27.8
I keep it. But there is more than one kind of orthodox Judaism. Chasidish, Charedi, Modern, Yeshivish, Torah Im Derech Eretz to start.
Edit: Here, I wrote this up
I will have to get Spencer's book, Identically Different: Why We Can Change Our Genes (2013), and see if he includes scientific data on this genetic basis for religiosity. Specifically, I want to know whether he simply has a hunch that it's genetic or has actually identified the gene responsible. Because if it's the latter then I want to know what percentage of the religious population has that gene. He says it's 40 to 50 percent but what statistical analysis produced that conclusion?
At any rate, the conclusion in that article seems to be at odds with the perspective which his book defends, namely, "that nothing is completely hardwired or preordained."
>I grilled a guy who believes his own righteousness is self sufficient.
It is sufficient though, if he keeps at it.
>He did a good deed. Remember in the ancient world wine was one of the few safe ways to get hydrated. Wine was a disinfectant. I didn’t understand that fir a long time. Shout out to the book The History of the World in Six Glasses
I have a hard time believing he did it because he wanted to give people disinfectant. And you missed the first part: he went to a wedding party.
> I mean you’ve just grilled the guy who spent most of his money doing good only because he has $50 in his bank account instead of $0.
I grilled a guy who believes his own righteousness is self sufficient.
> And if you want something more concrete: He went to a wedding party and he turned water into wine so the party can keep going.
He did a good deed. Remember in the ancient world wine was one of the few safe ways to get hydrated. Wine was a disinfectant. I didn’t understand that fir a long time. Shout out to the book The History of the World in Six Glasses
A History of God by Karen Armstrong.
When did Christianity official start?
Was Jesus Christian?
Why isn't it a big deal that Jesus didn't wrote or used the New Testament (383)?
What percentage of Christianity is based on prophecy and what percentage is based on random historical events?
I gave examples during 1st and 3rd centuries various Christian beliefs developed ad hoc because there wasn't any specific guiding belief. Look happened after the printing press? The Reformation. Look what happened after the Steam printing press in 1830 the 2nd Great Awakening in the US.
Christianity is not a Jewish faith. Christianity had pagan influences. is like It took over 350 to get from the execution of Jesus to the Edict of Thessalonica
Saying Gnositism is not Christian is like saying Mormonism is not Christian.
My friend, I am not doing your homework for you. Your answers are just simply so generic and without research that it begs the question, how can you deny something you know nothing about.
I would say the opposite. Your answers are on the level of a flat earther who does not wish to look at the slightest evidence. The evidence for God existence is there. But an atheist cant find God for the same reason a criminal cant find a police officer.
Let me close with this reference:
Read the product description on "Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe."
It has many scientist PhD's giving it a good review for making the logical/scientific case for God's existence like this:
"A meticulously researched, lavishly illustrated, and thoroughly argued case against the new atheism....." Dr. Brian Keating, Chancellor’s Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego,
Done here. Be well.
>Jewish messiah...the jews made the prophecies...so useless prophecy.
Absurdity, who else would you accept making the prophecies? God choose Israel to teach/reach the world.
>From the tribe of Judah...how did you prove he truly was and didn't just claim he was?
Genealogies. They existed, still do.
>There were 2 other candidates who were also rejected
Non sequitur. This adds nothing to your logic.
>as he was not of the blood line of David
Incorrect. That is why Matthew and Luke included the genealogy of the Messiah.
>7billion people and only 2billion and decreasing believe in him...again useless
Again, non sequitur. Truth is not dependent upon volume of people who believe something.
>Peirced? By what?
Roman nails upon a cross. Historical event that Romans did.
>Die for our atonement, unsubstantiated claim
Isaiah chapter 53.
>Didn't build the third temple.
>Didn't bring world peace.
Part 2 of the story. Hebrew bible clearly states part 1 is first. Messiah had a job to do first. Be our sin bearer.
I am Jewish. Not a shred of doubt, Yeshua is the Messiah.
There are Messianic Jews in Israel who clearly see Yeshua in the text, and who read the Hebrew fluently as their native language.
They have some excellent material. https://www.oneforisrael.org/category/apologetics/
And for more in depth answers on other objections, I would also include Messianic Jewish author Dr. Michael Brown who wrote an excellent five volume series called "Answering Jewish objections to Jesus."
He has a PhD in middle eastern languages. I have all 5 volumes of his books, which again show how these objections, from the Hebrew text, are not correct.
https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Jewish-Objections-Jesus-Historical/dp/080106063X
The Romans religions, are you saying their gods were not real?
Look at 1st-3rd century early Christianity. You say Christianity was dominate it doesn't appear to be so. Heresy in Christianity
Christian beliefs.
- Gnosticism
- Valentinianism
- Marcionism
- Montanism
- Adoptionism
- Docetism
I don't think i said Roman Emperors caused Christianity but I will say Emperors' Theodosius I, Gratian's and Valentinian II set the foundation for the Roman Catholic church, funded their churches and stopped funding native Roman Religions, which gave the Roman church a lot of power.
Christianity destroying paganism. Theodosius didn't fund native Roman religions. Christianity a proselytizing religion that sought converts. How much of Christianity beliefs and traditions were absorbed by native Roman religions? (Pagan Christianity Frank Viola)
I did get "Tradition and Apocalypse" will read in future, thanks.
You argue prophecy, were these historical events prophesied as well?
- Edict of Milan
- Edict of Thessalonica
- Islam 700
- Great Schism of 1024
- Reformation
- Great Awakenings
- Christian right 1940's
- Holocaust
- Prosperity Theology 1950's
Why does it matter if the the Jews were the first followers, do you have religious demographics of Jerusalem during Jesus time? Christianity is heavily influenced by paganism. Would it be reasonable a Jew living at the time of Jesus would rightly ignore, Jesus claims given the influences of Roman and Greek culture in Jerusalem?
This is the wonders of Christianity, you call yourself whatever you want, there is no consequences, there is no god that is going to put you in your place. But if you follow Jesus, you're a Christian and remember who has killed Jews ever since the founding of Roman Christianity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity)
> I would just like to say that from my pov protestants have a misunderstanding of Catholics.
Point taken.
Now respectfully I’ll say that from my pov Catholics often have a misunderstanding of sola fide.
> We are saved by God's grace, but we actually have to try to do our best and can't just do whatever sin we would like assuming we will be saved regardless.
Case in point; sola fide is not “do whatever sin we would like assuming we will be saved regardless.”
That is far from the teaching of the Reformers. This misconception seriously misconstrues what the Reformers unanimously taught.
“Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, James R. Payton Jr.
A common teaching the Protestant Reformers was while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone and faith that justifies cannot be solitary.
Christian liberty does not live in idleness; Lutherans do not reject good works.
> True faith is embedded in works, it's not enough to speak empty words. If you say you believe in Jesus you have to actually try to love your neighbor in practice too, otherwise it's not faith.
Correct. Sola fide means: we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. That does not equate to deeds/works being meaningless. That’s not what scripture teaches and that’s not what the Reformers taught.
Our deeds/works are evidences or “fruits” of one who has faith and is saved.
> That doesn't make it okay and it's honestly very warped that you even use that as an example.
Well, being crucified, or burned at the stake, or having your shirt stolen, also aren't okay in civilized society, either. In ancient warfare, rape, murder, and pillaging were generally expected when a city was sacked: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Boudica/
>There won't be any socialization, there will be no connection with God and no prayer.
Are you absolutely certain of that?
>Those who go to Hell won't be Christians anyway.
According to this author: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Christians-Hell-Francis-Uwandu/dp/B08F719MT1
some Christians actually do go to Hell.
These are all addressed and debunked by scholar and Messianic Jew, Dr. Michael Brown.
There are mountains of other prophecies which all point to Yeshua as Messiah. Too much to go into here.
Let me recommend an excellent and scholarly five volume series called "Answering Jewish objections to Jesus." Over 1,500 pages in all. Excellent material that I use to teach from.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801064236/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glc_fabc_PF37D1S8SJ1TJN7KXFMB
Yeshua/Jesus is the Messiah.
> A question for your opponent isn’t support for your position. > > Your claim is unsupported.
Oh, very well. "There are plenty of suffering souls that could do with a bit of cheering up, and who need some love." An affirmative statement, then. For support, Revelations 21:
> the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.
If you're consigned to a fiery lake of burning sulfur, then you could use a little cheering up.
>Then you concede your point is unsupported.
Being unsupported doesn't mean that my claim is wrong. Maybe I am the first man in history to have issued such a claim. People who think that I am right will come to support me eventually. However, there are some who believe that many Christians will go to Hell:
https://www.amazon.com/Christians-Hell-Daniel-P-Franklin/dp/161663457X
If such people are truly Christians, then they won't just sit around gnashing their teeth. They will continue to love God, and go about helping their neighbors.
>If you're thinking of a cushy afterlife for yourself, then of COURSE you're thinking about yourself. > >Another unsupported if/then conditional statement.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/295000.Cutting_Through_Spiritual_Materialism
>I remain unconvinced Christians should prefer Hell over Heaven.
If you want a cushy afterlife for yourself, then of COURSE you will want to go to Heaven. If you would like a bit of a challenge, then you could think about joining the Christians destined for Hell.