# Interesting



## Madsnooker (Mar 14, 2016)

Ravi is a brilliant thinker!!!


https://www.facebook.com/ravizacharias/videos/10153305780206813/


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2016)

Fantastic argument. Par for the course for Ravi and company.

This would be a great discussion piece, if anybody else gives it a listen.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2016)

First point " I was on a bed of suicide. I prayed a prayer of desperation.....Pragmatically it made sense for me to hang on to a life jacket that was thrown my way"

Two minutes in he says that the proof of Christ's divinity is prophesy.

Multiple authors came up with the same story.

Resurrection.

Dramatic conversions.

"The purity of his life, unmatched."

"The death that He promised for the forgiveness of sins."

No body means Jesus rose from the dead.

"Father forgive them for they do mot know what they're doing"

"The uniqueness in the exclusivity of his claim"

The resurrection (again)

"I have personally verified it in my own life"

The other guy "The resurrection was particularly key to me in my investigation"

"How did we come up with a scholarly myth about resurrection?"

"There were many people utterly convinced that they had see this man Jesus alive [resurrected]"

"Because it was a miraculous claim, it's not in the realm of history"

"What's the best explanation of the facts?"

".....then to take that next personal step of praying a prayer to God....God, the Christian God, I don't know if you're out there...."



Yeah.  That's good philosophy right there.  Respond to them one at a time.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2016)

It's not that this stuff cannot be questioned, it is that believers refuse to question it.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> It's not that this stuff cannot be questioned, it is that believers refuse to question it.



It's just so hard for me to understand how people fall for that tripe.  That poor guy asked a good question and he got a ridiculous non-answer.  It's not even good public speaking.  It's...........preaching.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 16, 2016)

It was really hard for me to watch but, I did...twice. 
I liken it to watching folks seriously discuss Star Trek as if it were real. It is scary, sad, and humorous all at the same time. 

Next, let's ask a Muslim, Why is Islam the right religion?
Gosh, I wonder what they will say? Ask a Scientologist. A Mormon. 

I wonder, while on his suicide bed, what would have happened to him if someone would have given him "The Self-Esteem Workbook for Teens: Activities to Help You Build Confidence and Achieve Your Goals", instead of a Bible.


----------



## Madsnooker (Mar 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> It's not that this stuff cannot be questioned, it is that believers refuse to question it.



Sure it can be questioned, and many believers question things, just as I have. Based on my journey and what I have experienced and studied, I believe what I believe. I thought the arguments that were made, were very good. If you don't, that's perfectly fine. The fact that multiple authors wrote about Jesus hundreds of years before he was born, and giving facts about what his name would be, where he would be born, and that he would sacrifice his life, I find astounding and was the crux of Ravi's point.

If you don't find that, at the very least, an unbelievable coincidence, that's fine. 

Also, the point made by the second speaker was that while he was studying philosophy as a non believer, at a prestigious University, he was fascinated by the fact that Christianity exploded shortly after the Crucifixion, when it should have died after his death. The number of those that saw him from Romans, to non believers, to the Disciples, after they saw him crucified, was also to many to classify as being made up by any standard used. That's why he made the point that many of the most staunch mainstream atheists of today, that know history and documentation standards, agree, those people saw someone they believed to be Jesus, even though they witnessed him crucified. 

Again, I posted because I thought their arguments were thought provoking if you look at them with absolutely no agenda. If you don't agree, that's fine.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 16, 2016)

Madsnooker said:


> The fact that multiple authors wrote about Jesus hundreds of years before he was born, and giving facts about what his name would be, where he would be born, and that he would sacrifice his life, I find astounding and was the crux of Ravi's point.



There is increasing evidence the NT writers were intent on making the birth fit the prophecy.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2016)

Can we discuss that evidence?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 16, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Can we discuss that evidence?



Sure. 
http://archive.archaeology.org/0511/abstracts/jesus.html

Perhaps the most important reason to suspect the accuracy of Matthew and Luke is that Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 BCE when Jesus is believed to have been born. Archaeological studies of the town have turned up a great deal of ancient Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 BCE 7 and lots of material from the sixth century CE, but nothing from the 1st century BCE or the 1st century CE.

Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority wrote in Archeology magazine:


" 'Menorah,' the vast database of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), describes Bethlehem as an 'ancient site' with Iron Age material and the fourth-century Church of the Nativity and associated Byzantine and medieval buildings. But there is a complete absence of information for antiquities from the Herodian period--that is, from the time around the birth of Jesus. 8 

According to National Geographic:


"Many archaeologists and theological scholars believe Jesus was actually born in either Nazareth or Bethlehem of Galilee, a town just outside Nazareth, citing biblical references and archaeological evidence to support their conclusion. Throughout the Bible, Jesus is referred to as 'Jesus of Nazareth,' not 'Jesus of Bethlehem.' In fact, in John (7:41- 43) there is a passage questioning Jesus' legitimacy because he's from Galilee and not Judaea, as the Hebrew Scriptures say the Messiah must be. ..."

 Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority, says, 'There is surprisingly no archaeological evidence that ties Bethlehem in Judea to the period in which Jesus would have been born'."


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2016)

Did the city vanish for 1500 years?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2016)

Maybe Im not reading it correctly, but I think that is the basis of the argument........either way, the "Jesus of Nazareth" is compelling, for sure.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2016)

However, if Mathew or Luke were written in the interim gap, wouldn't folks have scratched their heads over the authenticity of it all?  For instance, when the NT was compiled, I think such a thing may have been considered......"they saying he was born in a city nobody lived in for a thousand years" sort-a thing.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2016)

Madsnooker said:


> Sure it can be questioned, and many believers question things, just as I have. Based on my journey and what I have experienced and studied, I believe what I believe. I thought the arguments that were made, were very good. If you don't, that's perfectly fine. The fact that multiple authors wrote about Jesus hundreds of years before he was born, and giving facts about what his name would be, where he would be born, and that he would sacrifice his life, I find astounding and was the crux of Ravi's point.
> 
> If you don't find that, at the very least, an unbelievable coincidence, that's fine.
> 
> ...




That's why I pulled each of Ravi's reasons out individually and in order so that we can discuss them point by point.  It's interesting to note how he, or any other preacher constructs their proof; where and when they insert a non-falsifiable (faith) claim that the amen chorus will gloss over with shining eyes, not realizing that they are getting bamboozled.  Take the greatest sermon you have ever heard, or one of Isreal's posts, and break it down line by line.  See how many assertions are made without supporting evidence.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 16, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> However, if Mathew or Luke were written in the interim gap, wouldn't folks have scratched their heads over the authenticity of it all?  For instance, when the NT was compiled, I think such a thing may have been considered......"they saying he was born in a city nobody lived in for a thousand years" sort-a thing.



I don't see many believers scratching their heads over the authenticity of it all(anything in the Bible). The prophecy was fulfilled, more Christians were created, Google maps or the internet or quick modes of transportation didn't exist so, they just believed. 
Matthew reportedly lived in Syria and was influenced by other books already written. Piling on certainly helps with the believability in that age. 
They should have scratched their heads at a virgin birth too. What is more likely, an unmarried pregnant woman, back then, lying, or a virgin birth?  
Making your very pregnant wife travel a very long way without independent suspension, or just have the baby where you are?
Birth place, birth date, birth canal, all head scratchers that got a pass.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2016)

These folks were a lot closer to eyewitness accounts than you or I.  

Consider the difference between reading about a ghost somebody saw in the 1700's and one your grand pappy seen......you will give more credence to grand pappy most likely.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2016)

The folks who compiled the bible had a checklist, it wasn't like they sat in a big room and sed "which ones we want?"  I'm just saying it seems a dead city would have thrown flags, as other books did for various reasons.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 16, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> These folks were a lot closer to eyewitness accounts than you or I.
> 
> Consider the difference between reading about a ghost somebody saw in the 1700's and one your grand pappy seen......you will give more credence to grand pappy most likely.



Yet, not eyewitnesses.

And no, my Mom, Dad, and Stepmom were old as dirt when I was born. They told me all kinds of stories about where ghost hang outs and how they actually saw ghosts. I didn't believe them. I actually went to the ghostly spots and followed the directions. Shocker, no ghosts. I am pretty sure ghost only appear to those that believe in ghosts.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 16, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> The folks who compiled the bible had a checklist, it wasn't like they sat in a big room and sed "which ones we want?"



I have read that that is exactly what they did. Thus missing books.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2016)

660griz said:


> I have read that that is exactly what they did. Thus missing books.



Then we have different sources.  I believe a criteria was established, and those not making the cut were not included.  

However, the point remains that, according to your source, Bethlehem would have been abandoned for over 1000 years at that point.  I think they would have raised their eyebrows a little bit.  They believed they were reading stories grandpappy wrote.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2016)

660griz said:


> Yet, not eyewitnesses.



  The gospels are a compilation of eyewitness testimony.



660griz said:


> I am pretty sure ghost only appear to those that believe in ghosts.



On this we agree.  Similar to black panthers, yet, I have some extremely credible friends who have seen both.  It's a curious thing.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 16, 2016)

Like I said, nothing else raised their eyebrows, why would this small detail be different?
Why no evidence of a town being there?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 16, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> The gospels are a compilation of eyewitness testimony.



First I heard of that.
Authors don't claim to be eyewitnesses.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2016)

Madsnooker said:


> Sure it can be questioned, and many believers question things, just as I have. Based on my journey and what I have experienced and studied, I believe what I believe. I thought the arguments that were made, were very good. If you don't, that's perfectly fine. The fact that multiple authors wrote about Jesus hundreds of years before he was born, and giving facts about what his name would be, where he would be born, and that he would sacrifice his life, I find astounding and was the crux of Ravi's point.
> 
> If you don't find that, at the very least, an unbelievable coincidence, that's fine.
> 
> ...



Can you be specific about what you think are prophesies about jesus in the ot?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> These folks were a lot closer to eyewitness accounts than you or I.
> 
> Consider the difference between reading about a ghost somebody saw in the 1700's and one your grand pappy seen......you will give more credence to grand pappy most likely.


Who had access to these writings when they were written? 
Clergy.
The people got the stories told to them for three or four hundred years. The earliest copies are 4th century because there is evidence that earlier copies were purposely destroyed by "the church".

Most people back then never left a ten square mile radius from where they were born. They would have no idea about a town existing or not unless they were told about it.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2016)

660griz said:


> First I heard of that.
> Authors don't claim to be eyewitnesses.



Pretty sure John did.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2016)

660griz said:


> Like I said, nothing else raised their eyebrows, why would this small detail be different?
> Why no evidence of a town being there?



Documents referencing the town is considered evidence most other situations.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Most people back then never left a ten square mile radius from where they were born. They would have no idea about a town existing or not unless they were told about it.



Trade existed across many continents.  At some point, maybe in Rome, or any other place, some historian would'a said "hey now, folks ain't lived there for 1000 years."  Consider all the Roman soldiers who occupied Isreal during that time.  Lots of info passed back and forth between cultures.

There are holes in the story if you are skeptical of miracles (virgin birth is a tough hurdle, I will admit) I just fail to see this as one of them.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Trade existed across many continents.  At some point, maybe in Rome, or any other place, some historian would'a said "hey now, folks ain't lived there for 1000 years."  Consider all the Roman soldiers who occupied Isreal during that time.  Lots of info passed back and forth between cultures.
> 
> There are holes in the story if you are skeptical of miracles (virgin birth is a tough hurdle, I will admit) I just fail to see this as one of them.


For the record I am not saying Nazareth did not exist.
From what I have read over the years it was a very small village and not a city. It really was not well known at the time.
Bart Ehrman addressed the existence of Nazareth in one of his books.

Basically it existed during the time of Jesus but was not well known.

Here is a link to Ehrman blog that sums it up quite well, the last paragraph explaining while it did exist, it was never mentioned in the Hebrew bible, Talmud, or Josephus .
http://ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/


----------



## Israel (Mar 17, 2016)

bullethead said:


> It's not that this stuff cannot be questioned, it is that believers refuse to question it.


Assumptions make me comfortable, do they do that for you too?


----------



## Israel (Mar 17, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> That's why I pulled each of Ravi's reasons out individually and in order so that we can discuss them point by point.  It's interesting to note how he, or any other preacher constructs their proof; where and when they insert a non-falsifiable (faith) claim that the amen chorus will gloss over with shining eyes, not realizing that they are getting bamboozled.  Take the greatest sermon you have ever heard, or one of Isreal's posts, and break it down line by line.  See how many assertions are made without supporting evidence.



OK.
You got me.
Would it surprise you to know you are on my mind...often?
That means nothing of itself, whether I say I pray for you, or am troubled by you...that means nothing at all. 
But if, regardless of that, you can believe "you, Ambush, come to mind in Israel" then we could at least have a start. Together.
If not, then, you must believe me a liar...which is fine, too.
After all, how could I "prove" to you, I am not? That's a fool's errand, right there. Me saying "Jesus is the truth"...and then, me saying "but, hey, I am true too..." (Do you easily see someone there, in sight of man, trying to ride coattails?)

I think this is such a great impasse...but, perhaps, not without cause. At heart, it appears to me, there is a greater friction between us, so that even in my saying "you come to mind often", you must question..."what is the agenda for him even saying that?"

But, it's where "I am" with you, as you seem to be a certain place "with me"...the man full of unsupported assertions. Whether it's "fair" for me to speak of you...just because you mention me, is also of no consequence, I could just as truly say "I think of my wife, often"...or my "projects" at the house. But as to you, and me...if there is anything to be said...(do you want to hear about the roof?)...need it be said, at all?

But the truth is...whether I saw this post this morning, or not, I cannot lie, it's mostly on my way to work...I think about you...(and not only you)...but here "we" are.

I think of a man, who professes to have "once" been a believer, now very much at seeming odds to Jesus Christ. I could naively say "I don't know how one goes from "there" to "here"...but that naivete is no longer a place I can hide. That "seems" is where all the matter lay...for me at least. Of all the things I am convinced, this may be the most "with me" at all times...for I have been through what I have needed to go through, and to try to reconstruct a place of comfort would be a lie for me. This thing "with me" in short is this...I have called myself a believer for what may be decades, and yet, I have found "myself" at odds with Jesus Christ more often than I could recount.
It then becomes peculiar for me...for if the one who says "I believe" is shown to be at odds...might not the one who says "I do not"...be a one more in accord with the Lord...than easily assumed? What do I know...of this thing I call "believing?", then? And if so little I know is now made plain in my sight...not knowing who the "truer" is (and I am convinced that is all that matters...not "mumble some words and presto change-o")...but truth. Who is really being "true"?

I would say this also, I think I see more resistance, and again, perhaps rightly so, to a "notion"...perhaps vague, perhaps rarely expressed, perhaps even sometimes...clearly expressed...or at least "discerned". That somehow...in the "believing"...or one saying "I believe"...comes the proposition of a superiority...that odious self righteousness that is such a tempting...and perhaps irresistible target. But, I am also not as foolish to believe these missiles are launched from only one side...thus my avatar. Be rational! Get real.
If there is an inherent flaw to our dealings...it can easily be supported by the fragrance we (may) unknowingly emit "I am better for being a believer"...or...just as ridiculous "I am too smart to believe that silliness".

So, in these dealings I see (and reprove me as necessary) that impasse. On one side it appears the assault is less against Jesus Christ than "you are just a hypocrite claiming to believe something you think makes you better, but I see the sordid truth of your self aggrandizement"...while perhaps from another side "you are a defective moral agent for not believing". How can there ever be any coming to terms with this...if we fail to come to terms with it in ourselves?

Both sides say "the truth of this "thing" is obvious!"

Where does one start? If indeed any start is necessary, or are we all, just whiling away the time? Is that what this is...just...as I know some have said..."this is just a discussion...to me, it really means little...or nothing...when I leave the forum...I leave it all behind (and go work on my roof)? Why would anyone think this is in any way an important thing...a man would be a fool...to believe that. Then...a man undercuts all his words...does he not? If this is nothing to a "you"...then you must be as nothing...to it. And should be considered so.

But, this raises another question, in the undercutting. If a man only seeks to "prop himself up" in words, then no doubt, he would be more aggrieved in their ill receipt, and he would "connive" to simply make his words more than they really are...and so...truth would mean less than trying to preserve his stature. So, fear of being undercut is a poor motive, is it not? And who would know to what lengths such deviousness would try to appear...as truth?

So, do you care to know what I "think about"...when I consider...you...and cannot escape being considered "of myself"...in that process? Or, have I wearied you, already?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 17, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Pretty sure John did.



You are correct. John claimed to be an eyewitness.

1) Is it author or authors? Do you believe there is just one eyewitness author of the gospels? When you state the 'gospels' are a compilation of eyewitness accounts, who are the eyewitnesses?

2) Does anyone really know who wrote John?

3) Does anyone really know who wrote any of the Bible?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 17, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Documents referencing the town is considered evidence most other situations.



What documents are you referring to? 
Lack of evidence is evidence too. 

Why would a 9 month pregnant woman travel over 100 miles on a donkey when there is a Bethlehem just a few miles away? Because it made for a better story.

The archaeologist could be wrong or just hasn't excavated enough. I can imagine it is hard to go dig up a major religious site such as this.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 17, 2016)

660griz said:


> What documents are you referring to?
> Lack of evidence is evidence too.



The Bible, which isn't a series of short stories compiled by some literary cult.  The NT, for instance, is 5 history books and a bunch of letters written between real people of the time, and revelation........which I don't know how to figger.  

Take the letters, under any other circumstance, these would be considered historical documents.  But, because they are included in the Bible, they are completely dismissed.



660griz said:


> Why would a 9 month pregnant woman travel over 100 miles on a donkey when there is a Bethlehem just a few miles away? Because it made for a better story.



I am not 100% sure on the logistics of the thing, but I had always been lead to believe it had something to do with taxes.  And, if she was pregnant out of wedlock, the family might not of really wanted to have much to do with her.

Do you leave a pregnant woman home alone, or take her with you?

Add in that the culture was very different from ours, and we can't really reason their actions according to ours.



660griz said:


> The archaeologist could be wrong or just hasn't excavated enough. I can imagine it is hard to go dig up a major religious site such as this.



I read a lot about these things when they pop up on the news sites.  History is constantly re-written every time a dig reveals something new.  The fact that the town was referenced, and not questioned by all who read it, particularly the council of Nicea, would be reason for me to think there is more stuff under the ground.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 17, 2016)

660griz said:


> 1) Is it author or authors? Do you believe there is just one eyewitness author of the gospels? When you state the 'gospels' are a compilation of eyewitness accounts, who are the eyewitnesses?



Well, John.  And whoever told the story to the person writing it down, if it wasn't actually the person writing it down.  John, for instance, refers to himself in 3rd person in that gospel.

The founding church was created by eyewitnesses, the books of the NT were written over the next 100 years, and, from my understanding, are a re-telling of the history told to them.  The letters have apparently been copied a bunch.



660griz said:


> 2) Does anyone really know who wrote John?



Does anybody really know who wrote the odyssey?  Does everybody accept it was Homer?  None of us were there.



660griz said:


> 3) Does anyone really know who wrote any of the Bible?



See above.  Paul wrote much of the NT following the gospels.  Peter, (an eyewitness), wrote a good bit of it as well.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 17, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Well, John.  And whoever told the story to the person writing it down, if it wasn't actually the person writing it down.  John, for instance, refers to himself in 3rd person in that gospel.


From biblicalarchaeology.org
The Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament, tell the story of the life of Jesus. Yet only one—the Gospel of John—claims to be an eyewitness account, the testimony of the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved.” (“This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true” [John 21:24]). “Who wrote the Gospel of John?” is a question that remains unanswered, though noted theologians throughout the ages maintain that it was indeed the disciple John who penned the famous Biblical book




> Does anybody really know who wrote the odyssey?  Does everybody accept it was Homer?  None of us were there.


 Does anybody care, live their life, or try to affect the lives of others based on the Odyssey? If we found out Marge actually wrote it and not Homer, would there come a great uproar and gnashing of teeth?





> See above.  Paul wrote much of the NT following the gospels.  Peter, (an eyewitness), wrote a good bit of it as well.


See above. Only one claimed eyewitness account. 

Google: "Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says"


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 17, 2016)

660griz said:


> Does anybody care, live their life, or try to affect the lives of others based on the Odyssey? If we found out Marge actually wrote it and not Homer, would there come a great uproar and gnashing of teeth?



It goes to show that there really is no way anybody can know, we default to our bias.  You don't care who wrote the odyssey, which is fiction, but seem to read a lot about who wrote the Bible, which you also believe is fiction.  Either way, you are applying different standards to the different works.  Unless we were there, in person, watching it, there is no way we can "know" who wrote it.

Same as any document.



660griz said:


> Google: "Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says"



I can prolly get most of that following along in here


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 17, 2016)

What gets me in here is that those of you who do not believe in Christ have to stretch just as far to get your argumentation against it as you claim the rest of us do to get our argumentation for it.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 17, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> It goes to show that there really is no way anybody can know, we default to our bias.  You don't care who wrote the odyssey, which is fiction, but seem to read a lot about who wrote the Bible, which you also believe is fiction.


I didn't always think the bible was fiction. I found out by lots of hard work. I always thought the Odyssey was fiction. 
I am sorry you can't grasp my point here. 

I


----------



## 660griz (Mar 17, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> What gets me in here is that those of you who do not believe in Christ have to stretch just as far to get your argumentation against it as you claim the rest of us do to get our argumentation for it.



No argument. 
Logic against the existence of God and the relevancy of the Bible, blind faith for. 
The only place a stretch is needed is when trying to apply logic to blind faith. Just doesn't work. "I just believe!" is all you need.

Simple.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 17, 2016)

660griz said:


> I didn't always think the bible was fiction. I found out by lots of hard work. I always thought the Odyssey was fiction.
> I am sorry you can't grasp my point here.
> 
> I



No, I get your point.  You are missing mine.  No need to be condescending either.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 17, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> No, I get your point.  You are missing mine.  No need to be condescending either.



I was in no way being condescending. However, I reserve the right to determine the need in the future. 
Your statement on my thoughts on the Bible vs. a fiction novel seemed to lead to the fact that you didn't get my point and I was truly sorry for not be able to articulate my point well enough. 
Of course I think both are fiction but....etc etc. 

I get your point. The main point being you believe the Bible. Got it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 17, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> What gets me in here is that those of you who do not believe in Christ have to stretch just as far to get your argumentation against it as you claim the rest of us do to get our argumentation for it.



Maybe that's because you claim and believe the Bible to be fact so we have to run around in circles providing mountains of inconsistencies to try to get you to see you simply believe it and no more.
When we provide those inconsistencies you view it as a stretch because you think we are arguing against what you believe to be facts.
Notice how 99% of our discussions revolve around a Christian making a claim and the rest of us pointing out from multiple angles why it's not a fact?


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 17, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe that's because you claim and believe the Bible to be fact so we have to run around in circles providing mountains of inconsistencies to try to get you to see you simply believe it and no more.
> When we provide those inconsistencies you view it as a stretch because you think we are arguing against what you believe to be facts.
> Notice how 99% of our discussions revolve around a Christian making a claim and the rest of us pointing out from multiple angles why it's not a fact?




What makes your "proof" of inconsistencies more of a fact than my "proof" of authenticity?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2016)

Israel said:


> Assumptions make me comfortable, do they do that for you too?



No, but this one sentence post from you is as comfortable as ive ever been with you in a conversation.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2016)

Israel said:


> OK.
> You got me.
> Would it surprise you to know you are on my mind...often?
> That means nothing of itself, whether I say I pray for you, or am troubled by you...that means nothing at all.
> ...



Back to uncomfortable!


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 17, 2016)

660griz said:


> I was in no way being condescending. However, I reserve the right to determine the need in the future.
> Your statement on my thoughts on the Bible vs. a fiction novel seemed to lead to the fact that you didn't get my point and I was truly sorry for not be able to articulate my point well enough. .







660griz said:


> I get your point. The main point being you believe the Bible. Got it.



My point is more relevant to a person, any person, being willing to accept something about one topic, but not the same thing about another.  A primary example is emails........liberals hammered Sarah Palin for using private emails as Governor.  The same liberals see nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton doing the same.

To the topic at hand, my point relates to ones willingness to accept authorship of one book but not another, or, apply a varying set of criteria for determining such.  Not the veracity of the contents.  We can also consider one's willingness to accept the contents by comparing views of the the Bible to views of other historical events such Lewis and Clark's expedition.  All the eyewitnesses are dead, there are events and descriptions involved that we can never know if they are true, there is very little eyewitness testimony, yet, we don't seem to question the facts.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_and_Clark_Expedition

A few parallels stand out......such as a complete working view of the expedition was not made until centuries later, certain first-hand accounts omitted their own names, limited first hand accounts, etc.

And yes, I know the standard first reaction is there is no claim to the miraculous, which is not the point.  We have no way of really "knowing" the things we know about that adventure.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2016)

JB, here is the thing with me..
For every accurate detail there are many inaccurate ones. For every witness there are parts written by anonymous authors who were not there and never met or saw anyone who was there and then wrote about specific details and cinversations decades later. The same stories told by different authors differ.
This book is different than other works because this one is supposed to be the work of a god.
At least to me, it isn't God-like at all.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2016)

If the Lewis and  Clark adventure claimed to be an adventure headed by Clifford, the only Son of the only God that is responsible for creation, wouldn't you expect it to be more accurate, if not 100% spot on with every claim backed up by facts?
Especially if the author told you Clifford 's Father inspired him to write this stuff down so the entire world would know all about it?

How would feel if you were skeptical about the claims of Clifford to begin with, and throughout the whole story you found parts that just are not true, contradict itself,are historically inaccurate,  are scientifically inaccurate,  are geographically inaccurate, had no idea about the customs of the people they met along the way and talk in great detail about events that are proven to have never happened? Now mixed in the middle are some real places, some real people and some real events, but there is literally no way to ever prove the hocus pocus claims that tie those real parts together.
Would you believe it no questions asked? 
Would you try to find out as much as you can and make a decision on facts backing up the claims?

Would you factor in at all that the most powerful being ever to exist has a hand in it and therfore the work should show the infallibility of the being?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2016)

I can only imagine the outrage that the killing of boys 2yrs old and under by King Herod must have made. Such an atrocity must have been recorded by a few sources and been told in handed down stories for centuries.
Outside of Matthew,  where else is it?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 17, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> What makes your "proof" of inconsistencies more of a fact than my "proof" of authenticity?


Good question. Glad you asked it.
Christianity (please note I didn't say God) makes some pretty specific claims about yourselves and other people. You take those claims as fact and live them and apply them to those other people. Going to he11, youve been deceived, your god is false, you can't get married, you arent properly yoked, you aren't a real Christian, sea shells are found on mountains because of the flood, no beer on Sunday.... the list is endless.
All based on the Bible. 
It is a FACT that there are inconsistencies and in some cases downright proof that those beliefs are wrong. That's why you must rely on the "super natural" as an escape clause.
What does an A/A claim?
Either "I don't know or "there is no God".
Since it is not a fact that a god (any of them) exists, there is no evidence other than belief and you can't prove a darn thing you claim....
Exactly who is stretching it and who isnt?
It's a shame that Christianity has saddled you with "I'm special and you arent" and then doesn't even give you the ability to prove it.


----------



## Madsnooker (Mar 17, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Can you be specific about what you think are prophesies about jesus in the ot?



Not sure if your serious or not? If you are, here is a link to over 300. http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

I'm sure Ravi assumes these students that ask such questions have some sort of knowledge on this.

No other religion has a book even remotely comparable to the Bible when its comes to documentation, authenticity, and prophecies that are documented to be true!!!


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 17, 2016)

Madsnooker said:


> Not sure if your serious or not? If you are, here is a link to over 300. http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html
> 
> I'm sure Ravi assumes these students that ask such questions have some sort of knowledge on this.
> 
> No other religion has a book even remotely comparable to the Bible when its comes to documentation, authenticity, and prophecies that are documented to be true!!!


I have trouble with establishing fact based on "its better than the other books".
We could fill the pages with links, including by biblical scholars, in opposition to"fulfilled prophecies".
I'm sure the writing of the Harry Potter books are well documented and certainly authentic.
See my point?


----------



## Madsnooker (Mar 17, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I have trouble with establishing fact based on "its better than the other books".
> We could fill the pages with links, including by biblical scholars, in opposition to"fulfilled prophecies".
> I'm sure the writing of the Harry Potter books are well documented and certainly authentic.
> See my point?



Those "Biblical scholars" that you speak of are trying to discredit the Bible and they ignore facts that can't be debated!!!! It is fact that there are writings hundreds of years before Jesus was born that prophesy Jesus being born. You can open a Bible today and read the Old Testament for yourself. The Old Testament wasn't trying to prove anything, those writers had no idea of the future, only what they prophesied. 

Who said anything about basing it on it just being better than other books? Nice deflection!

So, let me get this straight, you don't see a prophesy, in the Old Testament about the "seed of David" being a Savior of men, and then hundreds of years later, A "seed of David"(documented and factual), was born, his name was Jesus, and he was crucified (Documented and factual) as being compared to Harry Potter??? You can't be serious?????? Yea, 2000 years from now man will still be watching Harry Potter and Millions and Millions of people will be following him becuase they thought him to be real!!!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2016)

Madsnooker said:


> Not sure if your serious or not? If you are, here is a link to over 300. http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html
> 
> I'm sure Ravi assumes these students that ask such questions have some sort of knowledge on this.
> 
> No other religion has a book even remotely comparable to the Bible when its comes to documentation, authenticity, and prophecies that are documented to be true!!!


Yes, I am serious.
Only because I have as many links, jewish scholars, rabbis, and  authors to refute what you have for prophecies.
Fulfilled prophesies are prophesies that happened. Not things that are going to happen or didn't happen yet.

Since you are a link man like myself.
http://www.leavingjesus.net/TC/TorahCreation/Tanakh/mt_refutedgendeu.htm


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2016)

This is a long read and it starts out slow, but when you get down to the part about the early Christians(Notzrim) that existed in an early movement for 150 before Jesus, the history of the Christian movement becomes very interesting.
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
It ties together the early movement with the later movement where similar names were used in each and the stories got tweaked to suit the new movement.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 18, 2016)

Madsnooker said:


> Those "Biblical scholars" that you speak of are trying to discredit the Bible and they ignore facts that can't be debated!!!! It is fact that there are writings hundreds of years before Jesus was born that prophesy Jesus being born. You can open a Bible today and read the Old Testament for yourself. The Old Testament wasn't trying to prove anything, those writers had no idea of the future, only what they prophesied.
> 
> Who said anything about basing it on it just being better than other books? Nice deflection!
> 
> So, let me get this straight, you don't see a prophesy, in the Old Testament about the "seed of David" being a Savior of men, and then hundreds of years later, A "seed of David"(documented and factual), was born, his name was Jesus, and he was crucified (Documented and factual) as being compared to Harry Potter??? You can't be serious?????? Yea, 2000 years from now man will still be watching Harry Potter and Millions and Millions of people will be following him becuase they thought him to be real!!!


Yes of course those Biblical scholars are trying to discredit the Bible.
There is certainly no chance there are simply different interpretations just like there is with everything else in the Bible.
Because nobody can prove anything.
As for me deflecting go read your own post.
You yourself claimed and listed the reasons why the Bible is superior to other religions books.
I didn't compare the Bible to Harry Potter.
You used "well documented" and "authentic" as I'm guessing proof as to the Bibles validity.
So I used your same criteria to show that criteria doesn't make the story real.
Glad you are posting and I hope you continue to do so but please slow down and focus on what is actually said.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 18, 2016)

Madsnooker said:


> Those "Biblical scholars" that you speak of are trying to discredit the Bible and they ignore facts that can't be debated!!!!


 Au contraire. They are hotly debated. Whenever one book has the prophecy and the fulfillment, there is something fishy going on. All you need is a pen and paper to make and fulfill a prophecy. There are also lots of failed, so called prophecies.  





> The Old Testament wasn't trying to prove anything, those writers had no idea of the future, only what they prophesied.


 But, the NT writers were trying to prove something.  



> Yea, 2000 years from now man will still be watching Harry Potter and Millions and Millions of people will be following him becuase they thought him to be real!!!


I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Madsnooker (Mar 18, 2016)

660griz said:


> But, the NT writers were trying to prove something.



Yes they were proving what they had seen or told by first hand eyewitnesses.

Again, maybe I'm to simple minded but how anyone can say there were no prophecies fulfilled, are simply not looking at facts or they have little understanding of Old Testament scripture. By the simple fact that a man named Jesus was born, claimed to be God himself and was going to die for the sins of all men, then in fact, was crucified for that claim, just as prophesied, did fulfill Old Testament scripture. I'm even painting with a broad brush to keep it simple. There are many Old Testament scriptures that give great detail of the foretold birth and crucifixion. It was even Prophesied that Jesus would come from the seed of David (there was a reason for that as well but that's for another day and a different forum), guess what, Jesus was from the seed of David. That is documented and true unless you want to debate the history of Jesus? Yet another Prophesy fulfilled and is undebatable!!!  Those here, that want to continue to debate on even these most simple and understood scriptures, and documented by believers as well as unbelievers of the day, are simply ignoring the facts.

If you want to debate the authenticity of Jesus, good luck. History, documented writings by both believers and non believers, will far and away out number anything you could possibly come up with that would refute his authenticity. 

Listen, I know we are never going to agree, all I know is I searched the scriptures, with no agenda, many years ago and continue today, I still have many questions of why some things are the way they are, but what no one can take from me is my life before Christ, and then after my salvation!!!! I could tell you things that would blow your mind, just as most Christians can, but it would still not mater to you and that is OK. Salvation is for everyone but has to be accepted just as Jesus said. My life has never been the same since that day and I thank God for it Daily!!!! You can call me weak minded, need a crutch, what ever you want, you you couldn't be further from the truth if you did!!!! Before my salvation, I was no different than any atheist here today and that a fact!!!

I would love to continue the friendly banter but I have a large Bid I have to finish today as I'm headed to Marco Island for a week of bliss with my wife and kids for spring break next week. Hopefully the catching of many large snook, redfish and mangrove snapper await me!!!

Again, I started this thread because I thought the take of Ravi and the other gentleman was very interesting, at least to me. It wasn't to prove anything.

You guys have a great weekend!!!!


----------



## 660griz (Mar 18, 2016)

Madsnooker said:


> You guys have a great weekend!!!!



Thanks. You too.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2016)

Madsnooker said:


> Yes they were proving what they had seen or told by first hand eyewitnesses.
> 
> Again, maybe I'm to simple minded but how anyone can say there were no prophecies fulfilled, are simply not looking at facts or they have little understanding of Old Testament scripture. By the simple fact that a man named Jesus was born, claimed to be God himself and was going to die for the sins of all men, then in fact, was crucified for that claim, just as prophesied, did fulfill Old Testament scripture. I'm even painting with a broad brush to keep it simple. There are many Old Testament scriptures that give great detail of the foretold birth and crucifixion. It was even Prophesied that Jesus would come from the seed of David (there was a reason for that as well but that's for another day and a different forum), guess what, Jesus was from the seed of David. That is documented and true unless you want to debate the history of Jesus? Yet another Prophesy fulfilled and is undebatable!!!  Those here, that want to continue to debate on even these most simple and understood scriptures, and documented by believers as well as unbelievers of the day, are simply ignoring the facts.
> 
> ...




Have fun and be safe!

The "Mind Blowing" stuff is the best part, to me.  Please share some.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2016)

Israel said:


> OK.
> You got me.
> Would it surprise you to know you are on my mind...often?
> That means nothing of itself, whether I say I pray for you, or am troubled by you...that means nothing at all.
> ...



I don't think you are trying to self aggrandize.  I believe that you think you are filthy rags.  The only thing that I see wrong with it is that you are attempting to make others feel that way to; to get them to recognize their filth.  I wouldn't ever mind if people said "I NEED Jesus" as long as they never qualified it by saying "And you do to".

Actually, I don't particularly mind it (until they try to insert it into public policy).  I don't really think of it unless I'm on here or I read about some Gay wedding cake nonsense.


----------



## Israel (Mar 19, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think you are trying to self aggrandize.  I believe that you think you are filthy rags.  The only thing that I see wrong with it is that you are attempting to make others feel that way to; to get them to recognize their filth.  I wouldn't ever mind if people said "I NEED Jesus" as long as they never qualified it by saying "And you do to".
> 
> Actually, I don't particularly mind it (until they try to insert it into public policy).  I don't really think of it unless I'm on here or I read about some Gay wedding cake nonsense.


I don't think you sidestepped the question...I think you may have missed it.
The "filthy rags" thing is not what I thought my point...but isn't that what happens in an exchange...we can't help but learn about ourselves when we seek to communicate?
But OK..."I need Jesus" to even speak to you. Not that one is something, the other not, and not even in the seeming sides we come from...but to truly communicate, past all that "stuff".

So, I ask again, with no right to an answer, but also no more worthy of being ignored than the "next man". Do you have any interest in what I consider, when I consider...you? (and I reiterate, my considerations don't take place in a vaccum...For if I would even prefer it so, I nevertheless surely find myself...sucked in) 

For, in seeking to see you in the light, I find I also am being examined.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2016)

Israel said:


> I don't think you sidestepped the question...I think you may have missed it.
> The "filthy rags" thing is not what I thought my point...but isn't that what happens in an exchange...we can't help but learn about ourselves when we seek to communicate?
> But OK..."I need Jesus" to even speak to you. Not that one is something, the other not, and not even in the seeming sides we come from...but to truly communicate, past all that "stuff".
> 
> ...



Well, now I'm just incredibly curious.  What do you consider when you consider me?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 21, 2016)

660griz said:


> No argument.
> Logic against the existence of God and the relevancy of the Bible, blind faith for.
> The only place a stretch is needed is when trying to apply logic to blind faith. Just doesn't work. "I just believe!" is all you need.
> 
> Simple.



Gödel came to a different logical conclusion and he was the most "gifted" logician of the 20th century. Either your logic is flawed or there are different "logics"; both possibilities bode equally unwell for the "I'm an atheist because I think" nonsense.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Gödel came to a different logical conclusion and he was the most "gifted" logician of the 20th century. Either your logic is flawed or there are different "logics"; both possibilities bode equally unwell for the "I'm an atheist because I think" nonsense.



Which of Godel's conclusions pointed to a specific god?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2016)

We can imagine nothing more spaghettier than the spaghettiest of spaghetti monsters.

That how quick Godel's argument fails.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 21, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Which of Godel's conclusions pointed to a specific god?



Which didn't?



bullethead said:


> We can imagine nothing more spaghettier than the spaghettiest of spaghetti monsters.
> 
> That how quick Godel's argument fails.



 How will Gödel's work possibly stand against such a scathing, nuanced, obviously well thought argument?


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 21, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> It's a shame that Christianity has saddled you with "I'm special and you arent" and then doesn't even give you the ability to prove it.



If it matters.... I don't for a minute believe that I am "special" and you aren't. 

I believe in the eyes of the God of the bible that you're just as special to Him as I am. I also believe you have a choice to live with that or without it. 

But you already knew that


----------



## 660griz (Mar 21, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Gödel came to a different logical conclusion and he was the most "gifted" logician of the 20th century. Either your logic is flawed or there are different "logics"; both possibilities bode equally unwell for the "I'm an atheist because I think" nonsense.



Ah yes. Gödel. Didn't he starve to death for fear of being poisoned? He should have stuck with math. 
Few folks defend The Ontological Argument anymore. 
"but Morgenstern recorded in his diary entry for 29 August 1970, that Gödel would not publish(The Ontological Argument) because he was afraid that others might think "that he actually believes in God, whereas he is only engaged in a logical investigation."


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 21, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> If it matters.... I don't for a minute believe that I am "special" and you aren't.
> 
> I believe in the eyes of the God of the bible that you're just as special to Him as I am. I also believe you have a choice to live with that or without it.
> 
> But you already knew that



That's because you're not a Predeterminist.  You might not be reading the text correctly.  If I were to be a become a Christian, I can see no way to be one other than to be a Predeterminist; with all the Omniscience and Omnipotence and what not.  I would have to be one One of the Elect.  Pity on those unchosen but they serve a righteous purpose, burning eternally in He11 (though I may never know what that purpose is).


----------



## Israel (Mar 21, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Well, now I'm just incredibly curious.  What do you consider when you consider me?



As I'd said...I find me also in the experience.

And, as I take you at your word, and your words as to your "christian" experience, now seemingly forsaken, as true.

Am I wrong by inferring you have written that off, the comforts of it, the "believing" you heard Jesus speaking to you, the whole of the "believing" thing...as a self deception...a futile exercise in self convincing? But then...at some point a question arose, a question you feel you could not, in good conscience (if I take you as honest broker) respond to "according to the faith"...because as you'd said "I just couldn't wrap my mind around it?"

The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Can we leave that there for a few moments?

For now, to me, at least, after that excursion you took into what you believe, and call as 'the faith', you appear now, to me (if only), a man with this report..."I have seen, for I have experienced it, the utter depths to which a man may go in self deception (particularly) in regard to 'religious matters'....this matter of a 'god'."
You count all your experience there as sham, pointedly aware of this thing of "self deception", and have, in several posts, more or less made plain your prerequisites now, for believing...as in the burning bush. You'd take...a burning bush. 
Ambush. You. You, Am bush. (I just saw that...didn't come to it before this moment)

Yes, you seem burning...for truth. You are the "I will not have anything less than utter truth!" man. The "I have seen self deception firsthand!" guy. (in fact you believe you have seen it, that's about all you can ascribe to any with a report that contradicts your previous inability to find congruence _to them_ in their belief of the resurrection)
And here we come, the parade of believers.  And as you must, and are compelled to, you pick apart testimony, dissect and vivisect...looking for that place of agreement, that place where a man might meet you, with the "what ifs" as in "what if you saw your whole family burned...would you then think Jesus wonderful?" kinda questions. 

You are, again, so devoted to the notion of "self deception" you probe for that "thing" to to be admitted as possible ( funny how "God" is also similarly, and frequently, argued...implied by Pascal's Wager...which I reject)

So, then...let us start there...with self deception. Or simple deception, if you prefer. Can we agree, that by its nature, no man would know "if he was"? Deceived. Or, if he is. To be deceived is to be in a place where something true is denied, something untrue, embraced. But not even known to the man...where he is in it. What is "untrue" becomes the true (to that man) and conversely what is true, appears as false...or lie. (I thought, for a few boards, that my calculations were correct, till I put my tape there, the tape had no interest in showing me a fool in my maths, no interest in asking "where did you come up with 1 1/2 as being half the width of a two by four?" Yes, I know a two by four is 3 1/2 wide, I'll tell you that all day long...so really...where did "I" come up with 1 1/2...or even its multiple...for this? Ahhh, I am setting them on their face...and I was thinking of their thickness! That is my reason...my excuse. I was mistaken...proved by a dumb tape.
(But that does not now help with the possible requirement now to unscrew and reset...to redo a labor I enjoyed thinking of as "thus far in"...now needing for accuracy, a redo.) Without the "dumb" (as to my "worthiness") tape, I would have finished...looked up at my wonderful job, and if, as planned, pre-drilled my tin for roofing, been left with holes to see sunlight through) The tape simply tells me what is, I then, in light of its lines and numbers, find out where I am, what I have done...relative to it. I did poorly. At least to what I "thought" I had been doing...but really, as it turns out...not so poorly as to have to redo..."I" can live with something other than 24 on center...for my purposes...a covered deck.


So...
If (as to agree with you) "self deception", if it be a real thing...(and am I being presumptuous in inferring you are saying you are familiar with it? you count excursions into unreality...as real? A "real" experience?) is dependent upon "truth" being a real thing...otherwise deception and truth have no meaning....there is no one deceived, and no one "in truth"...just all "believing" what they believe...none more "correct" than another. (We could expand this, as I believe you, in your heart might be inclined to say "they believe what they want to...") But..."want to" or not really is immaterial...if there is no truth...for I could just as easily say of you "You believe disciples believe "what they want to about God"...because it is you...who 'want to' believe that of them."

I think you see where that leaves us. For you would be very...very wrong, if, in your thinking of me...that this matter of "self deception" goes unappreciated. (Or simply...deception.) But then...wrong or right...might mean nothing...if it be only a continuum we are on. You could say "OK, Israel, you seem to "know something" about this thing we are calling self deception...but I have a more real experience of it, mine is a deeper understanding, my tape is measured in millimeters, yours...only in yards."
(You swallow camels...I filter down to gnat size.)

But, we are both...swallowing something.

And, if there be truth (as I believe I do believe), you could be righter than me. Your tape may indeed be in milimeters, mine a simple string I have marked off in my arm's length. Your building may stand when taped against, mine might indeed, fall, when simple weight of plumb is laid on it! I don't know. I. Truly. Don't.

You asked about my seeing the "cross" as that place, that thing a believer "has"...against which his theories are tested...the "thing" in his science that proves his work.
It is the place where I must surrender all my knowing...of all. Not because...as some have said in derision "one "should" just lay it at the foot of the cross" in a mocking of christianese. And, for all I know...such "christianese" is made to be mocked if it is only "made up".

I know only one thing, when I seek to make sense of how I am shown to be so wrong so easily about most anything, in building a roof, or in speaking to you. Even if the only truth I have is that I am indeed...all wrong...that remains for me, even if so...truth. Because I believe truth is...regardless of my relativity to it. (in the having of "more"...or "less" of it...it really doesn't matter at all)
The acknowledging that it is real...is all.

Do you say, you, Ambush...you..."I, too, was deceived ...once"?
Does that not imply, now I see? I see enough to see "I was deceived"? Truth came...to disabuse me of the lie. For no man deceived...can ever know it unless something...like the unlying tape comes.

The tape came to you. "Do you believe in the resurrection"
Your answer would not make you a better or worse person, but...in your previous belief (not unlike me, at all), upon which something was staked, something revealed, in your saying...that is no less revealed in mine...a "something staked" that brought forth, in your college years words to a man "then you are going to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored!"

(Which is, like me, a something I have surely thought of others...if not said...but I would not be shocked to find I had said it sometime, somewhere...to someone.)

You see, I too have been a "christian" that is given to thinking I am in a position to believe this...for others.
If you have days to spend...reading...or would you care to come visit? I could better relate how the cross and that "theory" meet. That thing, that woeful thing (and I recall your words of woe over saying that) that endows such a sense of superiority such a self righteousness that allows for such. Not merely "allows"...but provokes...compels.

Talk about deceived, huh? I am there with you. I'll go with you to the CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored you made for yourself in that, cause I have done no less. I'll share that woe. Not because I am generous. I'm not. (Of things I may still lie about, I just cannot lie about that)

(Yes. The cross. All equal before it. No man "knows better" than to be what he is. But I can admit...that's better. I can't deny. Am compelled. Yes, the cross Ambushed me)

The resurrection. Ambush: "I found out I couldn't believe it...I couldn't "wrap my head around it". We could wrap our heads, you and I, around wanting to feel superior. We did that with ease...but...this? No way. Then...if I don't "really" believe that...I am no longer a christian...

Do you see the flaw? How can one "no longer be" what, in the denial to make one...one...means they never could have been one...to begin with?
If being a christian means, in entrance, "I believe in the resurrection"...but a man later finds himself saying "but I don't really believe that"...who...is kidding who?
Either embrace I never "really" was one...or...I am yet deceived.
You know enough of scriptures to know Paul confronted this. "if the dead be not raised, then Christ is not risen..."
Yes, who can "wrap" their heads around it? Do you think I have? Do you think the many that pass through...have?
Do you think truth...could be truth...if we could "wrap" our heads around it? Or is it this obvious inverse "If I can wrap my head around it, then it "can be" truth? Huh?
What about the deception thing we talked about?
How can a man "wrap his head" around being all wrong?

Why do I say this? I say this because, and what you call me "making myself filthy rags" (which is a wrong exegesis...fancy words for misapplied...it is the works that may be filthy) is not what I am doing when I say...I believe deception can be "real"...because I have been so...and if I see I have been deceived, then, I must admit...something of truth has entered to show me. I cannot have "the one" without admitting to the other.

Truth, now.

(Do you wonder at how much you provoke...in me? I surely do.)

I may not be a "christian"...I really don't know just "how much" I believe...what I say I believe. I can very much relate to "Lord, I believe...help my unbelief". That may make me, before all others...the weakest and poorest excuse for a "christian"...they have ever seen, no matter. I am, in practice, I am convinced...that already.
I "would like"...and have surely been enticed to portray myself a certain way (They are going to heII)...which I now see as a grief. (But it felt sooo good, so right...again...shall we talk about deception?)

But, if I now see a something that tells me "You have been wrong" about so very very much (really...all), why do I still have hope? I do, I believe. Have hope that even if up to this very moment, I have not believed the many things I have asserted ( you take issue with assertions...so must I, if they be "just me"...) and even if the "me" of me...is all wrong...it doesn't matter...at all.
How can I explain this "hope"? It allows me, or is it because of "me"...being made able to cry out into the great unknown...not even caring whether I am deceived...or not...(and knowing I surely have been) about the meaning, the truth. I believe truth is there, because I see how much I have lied. And so hope comes from a strange place...how can this be? I lied. And, yet,  belief in Truth came. When I was shown how palpably, how ineffably, irresistably true it is that I have been shown..."I am a liar". Yes, I cannot wrap my head around it.

Did you "lie" about being a christian?

I have.

I too, have just as really as you...sent others to heII.
Of my choosing.

You are better served by a man who can tell you the whole truth...I can only tell you, I am not that man.


And you, have helped me...see that.
And I am grateful...for you.
For, in ways unknown, perhaps to you, and certainly to me, you have made me consider things in a way previously unknown to me, even in how we both need to, are compelled to, cannot seem to escape now, in someone, in something, in this sojourn to "see" the burning bush...for ourselves. And know...something beyond me...not "of" me (hating deception...self induced...or _other-wise_) is real.

And if "something is real"...than I too am, or have a hope to be...real.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 21, 2016)

660griz said:


> Ah yes. Gödel. Didn't he starve to death for fear of being poisoned? He should have stuck with math.
> Few folks defend The Ontological Argument anymore.
> "but Morgenstern recorded in his diary entry for 29 August 1970, that Gödel would not publish(The Ontological Argument) because he was afraid that others might think "that he actually believes in God, whereas he is only engaged in a logical investigation."



So, your logic is superior to Gödel's?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 21, 2016)

Israel said:


> As I'd said...I find me also in the experience.
> 
> And, as I take you at your word, and your words as to your "christian" experience, now seemingly forsaken, as true.
> 
> ...



Sometimes I cry out "Why?!?"  Who am I talking to?  As far as I can tell, no one, and I'm glad for it.

What you do is you latch on to something which you have no proof of because it makes you feel better.  I have nothing to latch on to and have had to make that be OK in order to survive.  One day, again, I may just want to "feel better".


----------



## 660griz (Mar 21, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> So, your logic is superior to Gödel's?



Perhaps. I don't think it is just me either. Have you heard of anyone going from atheist to theist because of Gödel's logic? Uh, no. Apparently, there are millions of folks that have better logic. 
Time will tell. Since you believe in a God you choose logic that proves it. 
I don't so, I choose logic that disproves it. 
Modal arguments for atheism conclude that atheism is necessarily true on the basis of a mere possibility claim.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 21, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Sometimes I cry out "Why?!?"  Who am I talking to?  As far as I can tell, no one, and I'm glad for it.
> 
> What you do is you latch on to something which you have no proof of because it makes you feel better.  I have nothing to latch on to and have had to make that be OK in order to survive.  One day I day, again, i may just want to "feel better".



I'm not sure this is true. Sometimes I think being an atheist might make me "feel" better. 

I wouldn't feel like that I was a sinner. I wouldn't feel like I need a savior. I wouldn't feel like there was a God I needed to understand or defend. I wouldnt even be worried about an afterlife because I wouldn't believe in one. 


So the argument that being a Christian makes me feel better doesn't hold a lot of water with me.


----------



## Israel (Mar 21, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Sometimes I cry out "Why?!?"  Who am I talking to?  As far as I can tell, no one, and I'm glad for it.
> 
> What you do is you latch on to something which you have no proof of because it makes you feel better.  I have nothing to latch on to and have had to make that be OK in order to survive.  One day I day, again, i may just want to "feel better".



Do you want to talk about truth...and proof, and really...put that "out there"?
Is life, to you, despite your words about "love"
(in spite of your lower case attribution to them), and truth, just the surviving? Tell me, where is the reason...in that...when no one survives the limits YOU set to it?
Then it must, and will, appear to you as cruel trick...this compulsion to just "survive" the unsurvivable.
See, you help me still.
I have wrestled in simplest terms with TGIF vs TGIM, and seen the inequity, you help me see an end if one refuses TGIM.
Something has latched on to me, and both of us...are quite latched. You say "nothing has you" in the thinking you are latched to nothing. You could be right.
I don't know at all how much you know of "nothing"...but likewise...
My glimpse of it simply tells you "stay away".
Go for everything. It's already yours.

Besides, your presence here already speaks louder than anything you or I might say...life is a high stakes matter.

The size of the cross, in truth.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 21, 2016)

660griz said:


> Perhaps. I don't think it is just me either. Have you heard of anyone going from atheist to theist because of Gödel's logic? Uh, no. Apparently, there are millions of folks that have better logic.
> Time will tell. Since you believe in a God you choose logic that proves it.
> I don't so, I choose logic that disproves it.
> Modal arguments for atheism conclude that atheism is necessarily true on the basis of a mere possibility claim.



If logic is what it claims to be, there is no "choosing" it. So if you've chosen your position, you didn't use logic to get there, you used your own reasoning.

"Logic" is useful only in the arena of mathematics, the same can be said about "proof" (which is another words that's thrown about around here).


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Which didn't?
> 
> 
> 
> How will Gödel's work possibly stand against such a scathing, nuanced, obviously well thought argument?


That's all his is. If it can be imagined than it must exist. Because he inserts a god, and you automatically attach yourself to your god being the same god, you are all Gaga over his work.
The spaghetti reference shows you how weak his stance really is.
His work can be and has been refuted all along.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2016)

Both God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist in the mind.
The equivalent of Logical equals.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 21, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> If logic is what it claims to be, there is no "choosing" it. So if you've chosen your position, you didn't use logic to get there, you used your own reasoning.
> 
> "Logic" is useful only in the arena of mathematics, the same can be said about "proof" (which is another words that's thrown about around here).



I gotta hand it to you. You speak with conviction.
You choose your definition of logic, I'll choose mine.
My own reasoning is logic. Maybe not the scientific principles of logic but, logic just the same. And, because I can envision my logic, it exists. Now, if this were a math forum, you would have a point. I'll stick with the simple definitions until otherwise needed. 

You believe in God, I'll believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster, everybody is happy.
You believe Godel's a priori argument is valid and I won't. I'll say it is a logical fallacy based on your chosen definition of logic.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2016)

Here is another "logic" dandy.
Breadcrumbs are better than nothing
Nothing is better than a good steak
Therefore breadcrumbs are better than a good steak


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 21, 2016)

Israel said:


> Do you want to talk about truth...and proof, and really...put that "out there"?
> Is life, to you, despite your words about "love"
> (in spite of your lower case attribution to them), and truth, just the surviving? Tell me, where is the reason...in that...when no one survives the limits YOU set to it?
> Then it must, and will, appear to you as cruel trick...this compulsion to just "survive" the unsurvivable.
> ...



Blah, blah, blah-biddy, blah....

Please, come up with something meaningful.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 21, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I'm not sure this is true. Sometimes I think being an atheist might make me "feel" better.
> 
> I wouldn't feel like that I was a sinner. I wouldn't feel like I need a savior. I wouldn't feel like there was a God I needed to understand or defend. I wouldnt even be worried about an afterlife because I wouldn't believe in one.
> 
> ...



It's not the difficulty of the task that defines it's worthiness.

Let's pick my words apart: 

"What you do is you latch on to something which you have no proof of because it makes you feel better".  We can discuss whether or not there has been a "latching on".

We can discuss "proof" (which we often do).

And we can discuss "It makes you feel better".

Then we can discuss what you have said:

"I wouldn't feel like I was a sinner".  How does thinking yourself a sinner make you feel?  Not the saved part, the sinner part?

"I wouldn't need a savior".  Do you?  Do you really?  What makes you think that?  Because you would be a homicidal maniac without Him watching you?  Because you can't control the dirty thoughts in your mind without Him?

"..there was a God I needed to understand and defend".  Can you do either?  Really?  I mean, REALLY?  You understand Him differently than a Predestinationist, or a Limited Free Will guy, which is to say that none of you seem to understand Him at all. 

"I wouldn't be worried about an afterlife".  But you are.  For you it's a concern; a consideration, an absolute certainty to be dealt with.  True, I'm not burdened with that concern anymore than I'm burdened by the fear of dragons breathing fire on my house while I sleep.  That's not a slight but a comment on how people determine probability.  

I just re-read what I wrote and I realized that if one applies a certain tone one might think me combative.  I highly respect you and wouldn't want you to think that I'm attacking you.  I simply want to discuss this.  You asked once why we keep coming back to this discussion.  I would take notice of how many books and how much study is being done on the subject of religious belief and Christianity, as it remains a niggling obstruction to secular and rational thought.  On the other hand, secularism and reason may be looked at by those of faith as a niggling burr under the saddle of devotion and in some cases an outright enemy of all decency. YMMV.


----------



## Israel (Mar 21, 2016)

The nothing has you.

The beast that thou didst see: it was, and it is not; and it is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go away to destruction, and wonder shall those dwelling upon the earth, whose names have not been written upon the scroll of the life from the foundation of the world, beholding the beast that was, and is not, although it is.

Neither shall they believe, even if one were to come back from the dead.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 21, 2016)

bullethead said:


> That's all his is. If it can be imagined than it must exist. Because he inserts a god, and you automatically attach yourself to your god being the same god, you are all Gaga over his work.
> The spaghetti reference shows you how weak his stance really is.
> His work can be and has been refuted all along.



I haven't gone "gaga" over his work, I simply pointed out that the most influential logician of the 20th century used the mathematical rules of logic (which is the only logic that exists) to "prove" the existence of God; and that you claimed to use "logic" to come to a different conclusion. I was only trying to draw a parallel between Gödel and yourself so that I might properly categorize your view.

There's a difference in reasoning and logic, just as there's a difference in science and natural laws.



660griz said:


> I gotta hand it to you. You speak with conviction.
> You choose your definition of logic, I'll choose mine.
> My own reasoning is logic. Maybe not the scientific principles of logic but, logic just the same. And, because I can envision my logic, it exists. Now, if this were a math forum, you would have a point. I'll stick with the simple definitions until otherwise needed.
> 
> ...





bullethead said:


> Here is another "logic" dandy.
> Breadcrumbs are better than nothing
> Nothing is better than a good steak
> Therefore breadcrumbs are better than a good steak



It's interesting to me that you chide believers for arguing the same as you do here. Perhaps you reason there's a difference? Every man is right in his own eyes.

Carry on.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I haven't gone "gaga" over his work, I simply pointed out that the most influential logician of the 20th century used the mathematical rules of logic (which is the only logic that exists) to "prove" the existence of God; and that you claimed to use "logic" to come to a different conclusion. I was only trying to draw a parallel between Gödel and yourself so that I might properly categorize your view.
> 
> There's a difference in reasoning and logic, just as there's a difference in science and natural laws.
> 
> ...



Gödel is influential to you.
He starts with an assertion that there is a god. It is flawed right off the bat. His formula does nothing to prove any God. It reasons that a god exists in minds therefore it is real.
Get in line because that influential logic just proved any other thing even one person can conjure up also exists. It is a joke.

Refresh me on what I am arguing here that I chide believers for.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 21, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> It's not the difficulty of the task that defines it's worthiness.
> 
> Let's pick my words apart:
> 
> ...



I know you're not attacking me, and although these types of conversations are frustrating to me for lots of reasons...I entered it


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 22, 2016)

jmharris23 said:


> I know you're not attacking me, and although these types of conversations are frustrating to me for lots of reasons...I entered it



They're frustrating to me too but I gotta know.  400 billion people can't be wrong, can they?


----------



## Israel (Mar 22, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> They're frustrating to me too but I gotta know.  400 billion people can't be wrong, can they?


yes, we can be.
but where did you get that number?


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 22, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> They're frustrating to me too but I gotta know.  400 billion people can't be wrong, can they?



Sure they can 

“"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
CensoredCensoredMatthewâ€¬ Censored7:13-14â€¬ CensoredESVâ€¬â€¬


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 22, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Here is another "logic" dandy.
> Breadcrumbs are better than nothing
> Nothing is better than a good steak
> Therefore breadcrumbs are better than a good steak



That give me a good laugh ^^^


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> That give me a good laugh ^^^



And I did not have to assume, assert or introduce anything imagined in the mind to do it.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 23, 2016)

bullethead said:


> And I did not have to assume, assert or introduce anything imagined in the mind to do it.




Bullethead, you my friend are a real piece of work.
I dont know whether to laugh or cry.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 23, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> They're frustrating to me too but I gotta know.  400 billion people can't be wrong, can they?



What about it is frustrating to you?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Bullethead, you my friend are a real piece of work.
> I dont know whether to laugh or cry.



To know me is to love me.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 24, 2016)

bullethead said:


> To know me is to love me.



Maybe..but to know Jesus is to really know love.And to be known and loved by Jesus is to be hated by the world.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Maybe..but to know Jesus is to really know love.And to be known and loved by Jesus is to be hated by the world.


I used to know him but we broke up. I wasn't  feeling the love. And the whole Bible man love thing is forbidden and all....


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Mar 25, 2016)

bullethead said:


> To know me is to love me.



lol


----------

