Obviously my screen name says what I believe but I encourage all ( Buddhist, Atheist, Christians, Taoist, Muslims, etc) to give me a good clear cut answer on if god really does exist. I would sincerely love to know what all of you think. That does not mean I won't argue with your idea or belief.
To name one, Jesus fulfilled every single one of over four hundred prophesies written about the life of the Jewish messiah, all of which were written in incredible detail and quite some time before his birth as a man. Some of these things he would have no control over if he was not the true son of God. There would be his birth (Isaiah 7:14- The messiah would be born of a virgin & Micah 5:2- The messiah would be born in bethlehem).
You weren't there, were you? You can't know for sure if what has been written is accurate or not, can you? Why do you believe it's true? I'll tell you - because you have faith. But you have to accept that this is the reason why those 'evidences' you're talking about are not objective proof, much rather they're confirmations of those who already believe in god.
The bible even predicts Judas' betrayal (Psalm 41:9) and even Judas' payment for deceiving Jesus (Zechariah 11:12- 30 silver pieces).
You know that in christian mythology there is a reason why Judas acted like that, not out of betrayal, in fact he was jesus' closest follower and innocent. Well, if you acknowledge one of the most recently found Apocrypha of course.
Several people (40 to be exact) wrote the bible over thousands of years. The Bible passes the bibliographic test better than any other ancient document, so unless all the various monks copying the Bible in various places across Europe somehow all got the same idea at the same time to mold all 400+ prophesies to fit Jesus and Jesus alone then changing the prophesies would never have worked out.
You cnotradict yourself there. Since when is 'over thousands of years' the same as 'somehow all got the same idea at the same time'? Next, you're ignoring the fact that the bible is the downwriting of oral traditions. Those can very well spread pretty fast, so that everyone could write a version of the bible that is more or less accurate; more or less since there are some divergences between certain versions.
you'll find that multiple non-Christians have mentioned Jesus.
Jesus (the man) could have existed, and rumors about miracles could have spread. But that doesn't require jesus to really be the son of god.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand this you're speaking as though there is no evidence whatsoever to for God that is outside of the Bible.
I don't even consider the Bible evidence, it's a claim requiring evidence.
If you look at the external text for determining the validity of a historical document, which the bible also passes better than any other, you'll find that multiple non-Christians have mentioned Jesus. What is probably the most well-known of these that I know of is Flavius Josephus, who mentioned Jesus' miracles, death at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and his resurrection in the 18th chapter of his Antiquities (3:63-65).
Every single one are second hand accounts or worse. Some are even questionable as to there validity. However even with evidence of a historical Jesus this still doesn't prove the Biblical one as true.
even with evidence of a historical Jesus this still doesn't prove the Biblical one as true.
i realy believe that jesus was a real guy. but just like whit robin hood the storys have been greatly altered over the many many years. the storys of robin hood is nowhere near the real robin hood and the storys of jesus are nowhere near the real jesus.
i realy believe that jesus was a real guy. but just like whit robin hood the storys have been greatly altered over the many many years. the storys of robin hood is nowhere near the real robin hood and the storys of jesus are nowhere near the real jesus.
I think the Biblical Jesus is a construct of many characters both real and fictional. Something to keep in mind with extra-biblical accounts is the name Jesus was common back than. So in some of these accounts we are actually hearing of another guy named Jesus who is actually unrelated.
Now I still wouldn't go as far as to say there wasn't an actual Jesus who played a roll in constructing the Biblical one, but I would question the extent of his importance.
Faith, in its simplest terms, is basically turning away from the evidence.
Not necessarily. Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing. You have to have faith that your computer won't crash as you read this, that the vehicle you use will start next time you put the key in the ignition, that I'm a real person, and more. According to the evidence, none of those things seem likely, but don't know if those things are true. As such they require faith.
I have a question: If it takes faith to believe a claim and it takes faith not to believe a claim, what position doesn't require faith?
Let me use another example. You can't see, hear, or touch gravity, and I highly doubt you're a scientist who has thoroughly examined the subject himself. As such, all you really understand about gravity has been told to you by other people. You know you stay on the ground, but you haven't conducted any test yourself to prove it's really gravity. Since you haven't done anything yourself to truly prove that gravity is true or false, then you would need faith to believe what you've been told, and faith to not believe what you've been told. On the other hand if you don't decided either way, that would not take faith since you didn't make any assumptions.
You contradict yourself there. Since when is 'over thousands of years' the same as 'somehow all got the same idea at the same time'?
I'm not contradicting myself. The Bible was indeed written by forty different people over thousands of years, but later in the middle ages the Bible was copied down by the monks. I had meant the monks copying the Bible at the same time.
Next, you're ignoring the fact that the bible is the downwriting of oral traditions. Those can very well spread pretty fast, so that everyone could write a version of the bible that is more or less accurate; more or less since there are some divergences between certain versions.
Actually, the practice of oral storytelling was very accurate. When you learned a story you memorized it. Everyone else memorized the story as well. That way, if one person were to make a mistake then the rest of the village would correct them.
Jesus is a construct of many characters both real and fictional.
the very same thing happend whit robin hood. back in the that time the name robin hood and rob hood and robina hood was a very much used fake name that thiefs and bandits used when they got caught by the police. all those bandits and thiefs became 1 guy in a storys that stole from the rich and gave to the poor (aka themself) there never was 1 robin hood there were 1000's of robin hoods.
I'm not contradicting myself. The Bible was indeed written by forty different people over thousands of years, but later in the middle ages the Bible was copied down by the monks. I had meant the monks copying the Bible at the same time.
Well then, you should've been more precise, and I admit I don't see the point you want to make with those ol' monks.
Actually, the practice of oral storytelling was very accurate. When you learned a story you memorized it. Everyone else memorized the story as well. That way, if one person were to make a mistake then the rest of the village would correct them.
You don't necessarily memorize it word by word, most often the bards and minstrels told the stories with their own words, of course trying to keep it as accurate as possible, and I'm sure they did a great job, but it's impossible to transmit a story from generation to generation without changing one detail here and there. Also, they wandered around and told stories to people who often hadn't heard the story before, so noone to correct them. To that comes interpretation. Who says the ones who listened, and spread the story further, didn't understand something wrong, or interpret something differently due to their own background?
The bible even predicts Judas' betrayal (Psalm 41:9) and even Judas' payment for deceiving Jesus (Zechariah 11:12- 30 silver pieces).
I was looking at these two Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me. Zechariah 11:12 I told them, âIf you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.â So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
Notice in both it's say "I" "my", it's a self reference. What this tells us is this isn't the person speaking talking about themselves, not a prophecy of someone else.
Not necessarily. Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing.
yes faith can be defined in this way, however when we are placing trust in something unproven faith takes on the meaning of belief without proof. Which is exactly what is required in religious beliefs.
Like in your example of having "faith" that my computer won't crash right this second. I have past experience with the computer to indicate that it's going to keep running. This doesn't mean it might not, I just have no reason to think right this second it will. This is why I prefer to use the word trust here rather than faith as the terms get twisted around like your trying to do.
I've found that if you look at all of the evidence with an open mind it really stacks up.
You were Christian before you looked at the evidence. Could it be that you don't look at it with an open mind?
I do like to take a look at the scientific side of Christianity. (there is science in Christianity, no matter what you say.)
LOL, for example?^^
To name one, Jesus fulfilled every single one of over four hundred prophesies written about the life of the Jewish messiah, all of which were written in incredible detail and quite some time before his birth as a man. Some of these things he would have no control over if he was not the true son of God. There would be his birth (Isaiah 7:14- The messiah would be born of a virgin & Micah 5:2- The messiah would be born in bethlehem). The bible even predicts Judas' betrayal (Psalm 41:9) and even Judas' payment for deceiving Jesus (Zechariah 11:12- 30 silver pieces).
Like Mage said: You're using the Bible to prove the Bible.
As it is, I could show you all the evidence in the world, but you still would have to step out in faith to believe it.
Nope, if it was objective evidence then I wouldn't need faith.
Several people (40 to be exact) wrote the bible over thousands of years. The Bible passes the bibliographic test better than any other ancient document,
While it's true that the Bible is based on historic facst, it's also true that not everything in the Bible is a historic fact (e.g. the creation story or the great flood).
so unless all the various monks copying the Bible in various places across Europe somehow all got the same idea at the same time to mold all 400+ prophesies to fit Jesus and Jesus alone then changing the prophesies would never have worked out.
I don't get it. They are copying the Bible which was already written. The people who wrote (parts of the) bible are the ones who made it fit the prophecies, not the monks.
you'll find that multiple non-Christians have mentioned Jesus.
Non-Christian sources don't talk about wonders as far as I know. It could be that the Jesus story is based on an actual person but that doesn't mean that everything the Bible says is true.
What is probably the most well-known of these that I know of is Flavius Josephus, who mentioned Jesus' miracles, death at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and his resurrection in the 18th chapter of his Antiquities (3:63-65).
Like I already said, that passage was probably altered. Again from Wiki:
Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage, and it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage has been altered by a later scribe. The Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion and controversy of interpolation. Louis H. Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937â"1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part.
I wonder why we don't find anything about dead people becoming living again. Which historian wouldn't write about such an incredible event?
Matthew 27:52-53 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
Thallus and Phlegon are two others, claiming it was a dark day when Jesus died, going hand in hand with Matthew 27:45.
Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me. Zechariah 11:12 I told them, �If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.� So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
Like they're written here, they do sound like a narration of past events, not predictions.
According to the evidence, none of those things seem likely, but don't know if those things are true. As such they require faith.
If you're defining faith as "believing something without 100% comfirmation", then I suppose that's accurate, but that's not the same kind of faith demanded from religion. You need to believe that what people wrote down in this book is accurate at a time when people made up many religions to explain what they couldn't possibly understand. And anyway, believing that my computer for sure isn't going to crash is different than saying, "Based on what I know about my computer, I don't think it will crash, and until something to the contrary demonstrates that it will crash, I don't need to alter what I'm doing to fit with a crashing computer." I know people don't speak like that, but do you understand what I'm getting at? Saying, "I don't believe in a god because none of them have been proven, but I'm not completely closing the door since they are not disproven" is agnostic atheism, which is different than gnostic atheism, "I don't believe in a god and I know that no god exists."
Let me use another example. You can't see, hear, or touch gravity, and I highly doubt you're a scientist who has thoroughly examined the subject himself. As such, all you really understand about gravity has been told to you by other people. You know you stay on the ground, but you haven't conducted any test yourself to prove it's really gravity. Since you haven't done anything yourself to truly prove that gravity is true or false, then you would need faith to believe what you've been told, and faith to not believe what you've been told. On the other hand if you don't decided either way, that would not take faith since you didn't make any assumptions.
You can experience the effects of gravity. You can test gravity, and you can draw conclusions based on it. It doesn't require faith to say that gravity most probably exists based on scientific experiments with multiple testers. The scientific method, the most reliable method we have for determining the difference between fact and fiction, supports the existence of gravity. Religion, however, cannot be experienced. You can claim that you experience "The Lord", and maybe you do, but someone who does not believe cannot experience any truth to religious claims. Religion cannot be tested because you "have to have faith". And by your definition, we have to have faith in almost everything. So why is religion able to use "faith" as a way to dodge evidence? Just because we can't explain everything about the universe yet does not in any way give credibility to religion, because until you demonstrate that a higher power is required for the creation of the universe, why should anyone have faith in it? And even if you do demonstrate that this higher power is required, how do you know that it wants us to believe in it without evidence? The problem is that the claim of a higher power can never be proven or disproven because supposedly it exists outside of time and space and acts in a way which we cannot understand. Then how can we judge that higher power as worthy of worship if we don't understand what we're worshipping?
If you don't mind me asking, do you believe that someone who doesn't have faith in the correct diety will go to Hell (or a Hell-like punishment place)?
You can experience the effects of gravity. You can test gravity, and you can draw conclusions based on it. It doesn't require faith to say that gravity most probably exists based on scientific experiments with multiple testers. The scientific method, the most reliable method we have for determining the difference between fact and fiction, supports the existence of gravity.
Something else to add to this. In science, with good science we have to show our work. It's the same as in math class you have to show each step you took so the teacher can follow what you did and see if you made an error and at what point if you did. Since we have this with science we can do the same thing with any scientific theory. So we don't just have to take a scientist word for it, we can follow each step that person took and see for ourselves if they got it right or not.
Also, to add what I was saying about the computer thing, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Claiming that I have a quarter in my pocket is not on the same footing as claiming that a supernatural being exists and cannot be demonstrated to anybody in the modern age, but demands faith and adherence to a moral code of his own contruction, and threatens us with eternal torment if we refuse to believe. That claim cannot be taken intellectually and honestly without a bigger reason than faith.
