# Jesus: The ultimate sacrifice?



## footjunior (Jan 26, 2009)

Is it really the ultimate sacrifice when you know you're going to get resurrected?


----------



## j_seph (Jan 26, 2009)

Would you give your son's life for something I done that was not right

Answer: Yes it was the ultimate sacrifice and I thank him every day


----------



## footjunior (Jan 26, 2009)

j_seph said:


> Would you give your son's life for something I done that was not right?
> 
> Answer: Yes it was the ultimate sacrifice and I thank him every day



No I wouldn't. But it isn't really that big of a deal when you know that your son will be resurrected and stay at your right hand for all of eternity, right?


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 26, 2009)

Then say thank you but no thank you and walk away. He isn't forcing you to accept it.


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 26, 2009)

*?*



footjunior said:


> No I wouldn't. But it isn't really that big of a deal when you know that your son will be resurrected and stay at your right hand for all of eternity, right?



How 'bout you watch someone beat your son close to death,spit on him, then crucify him and leave him naked to die...Then back to us about how it wasn't no big deal....

Do you have a kid?Or a brain?


----------



## Big7 (Jan 26, 2009)

Ouch!


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 26, 2009)

Feel the love.......

What hurts Him worse?  The fact that someone does not readily accept the gift and has questions, or the fact that one of His proclaimed followers uses callousness and insult that might be driving away those that seek knowledge?


----------



## j_seph (Jan 26, 2009)

I believe junior has none


----------



## footjunior (Jan 26, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> How 'bout you watch someone beat your son close to death, spit on him, then crucify him and leave him naked to die...Then come back to us about how it wasn't no big deal....



His life was just an instant of time when considering eternity. Is it the ultimate sacrifice when you know beforehand that it's only temporary?



> Do you have a kid? Or a brain?



You make me want to be a Christian. I cannot wait to accept Jesus into my life so I can show the love that matthewsman shows to his fellow man.


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 26, 2009)

*There is the problem*



footjunior said:


> His life was just an instant of time when considering eternity. Is it the ultimate sacrifice when you know beforehand that it's only temporary?
> 
> 
> 
> You make me want to be a Christian. I cannot wait to accept Jesus into my life so I can show the love that matthewsman shows to his fellow man.



You won't guilt me into apologizing to you...

You won't find salvation here picking arguments.There will be no epiphany for you in that. 

I don't suffer fools.

You know scripture.You want to argue.You could care less what we think and take every chance to try to dig at Christian beliefs and family values.Is all you are doing.I wonder if you even believe your own drivel.

The value of what I have,and what you offer is laughable to me.

Your attempts to discredit God, or our beliefs would be better served if you had something to offer.You don't.

Who would be swayed from what they perceive as true to follow someone who believes nothing?

Where you miss it is this.I am defending what I believe in.You are defending nothing.You have nothing to lose,I have everything.You'll never win the battle you are initiating.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 26, 2009)

footjunior said:


> His life was just an instant of time when considering eternity. Is it the ultimate sacrifice when you know beforehand that it's only temporary?
> 
> 
> 
> You make me want to be a Christian. I cannot wait to accept Jesus into my life so I can show the love that matthewsman shows to his fellow man.



Feel free to try and save someone thru your death. It won't be accepted since you are just like the rest of us and a sinner but if there is nothing special about it I am sure you can accomplish it.

Here's the deal. Christ was innocent and was crucified. I am not. If I give my life in sacrifice I cannot atone for your sins.


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 26, 2009)

*hmmmn*



WTM45 said:


> Feel the love.......
> 
> What hurts Him worse?  The fact that someone does not readily accept the gift and has questions, or the fact that one of His proclaimed followers uses callousness and insult that might be driving away those that seek knowledge?



There are those here that seek knowledge.
I wasn't addressing one in this thread.

God may convict me later of this,or he may convict you for allowing a blasphemer to hoodwink you... 

The "find all posts by user" function is working again.

If you see nothing wrong with the "knowledge " he is seeking,someone needs to replace the bulb.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 26, 2009)

Why do people respond to threads begun by foolish people who are simply looking for a ruse?
You're doing exactly what he wants you to do.


----------



## earl (Jan 26, 2009)

MM ,remember the advise you gave me. I agree that not all is what it seems.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 26, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> There are those here that seek knowledge.
> I wasn't addressing one in this thread.
> 
> God may convict me later of this,or he may convict you for allowing a blasphemer to hoodwink you...
> ...



I have not been hoodwinked by anyone, nor am I blind.


What I see on this forum constantly is the inability of some to explain just what they believe, back it up with scripture and move on without emotional response.  It quickly moves to insult and belittling, even outright callousness.
And it is the same folks every time.

I'll go back to the other forums where things are a little more tame.


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 26, 2009)

*who knows?*



Ronnie T said:


> Why do people respond to threads begun by foolish people who are simply looking for a ruse?
> You're doing exactly what he wants you to do.




Who knows?But I'm glad I'm not the only one that finds him foolish..

Sometimes I do,sometimes I don't.


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 26, 2009)

*I would encourage you to stay longer...*



WTM45 said:


> I have not been hoodwinked by anyone, nor am I blind.
> 
> 
> What I see on this forum constantly is the inability of some to explain just what they believe, back it up with scripture and move on without emotional response.  It quickly moves to insult and belittling, even outright callousness.
> ...




Then you'd see people involved in discussions respecting others beliefs or offering scripture to attempt to explain what they believe.People of different religions come to different conclusions over the same concepts or scripture.

If a person was seeking knowledge he would be well served here.If a person was seeking support,he would get it.

I don't have an inability to explain using scripture, but if a person doesn't believe the source you are quoting it is a waste of both peoples time.

If a person comes to ridicule, belittle, and blaspheme....
Well,that's what you see here.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> Then you'd see people involved in discussions respecting others beliefs or offering scripture to attempt to explain what they believe.People of different religions come to different conclusions over the same concepts or scripture.
> 
> If a person was seeking knowledge he would be well served here. If a person was seeking support, he would get it.
> 
> ...



I think WTM is right. You say I have nothing to offer, but then you respond to my thread by asking if I have a brain instead of answering the question. Is that really offering anything? The question is simply: Is Jesus the ultimate sacrifice if he knew he was going to be resurrected? Can you give an answer, or are you unable to? Is the choice of, "I can answer, but I don't feel the need to" really an attempt to escape the need to think about what your answer would be?

Do you believe that I am beyond God's grace? Do you believe that I can't be saved? If you believe that I can be saved, then why are you responding to an unsaved person in that way? Don't you think that you're reducing the chances of me coming to Christ? Why would I want to associate myself with people that talk to other human beings like that? I thought Christians were supposed to be the lighthouse, the city upon a hill.


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 27, 2009)

*You knew the answer that would be given befre you asked.*



footjunior said:


> I think WTM is right. You say I have nothing to offer, but then you respond to my thread by asking if I have a brain instead of answering the question. Is that really offering anything? The question is simply: Is Jesus the ultimate sacrifice if he knew he was going to be resurrected? Can you give an answer, or are you unable to? Is the choice of, "I can answer, but I don't feel the need to" really an attempt to escape the need to think about what your answer would be?
> 
> Do you believe that I am beyond God's grace? Do you believe that I can't be saved? If you believe that I can be saved, then why are you responding to an unsaved person in that way? Don't you think that you're reducing the chances of me coming to Christ? Why would I want to associate myself with people that talk to other human beings like that? I thought Christians were supposed to be the lighthouse, the city upon a hill.



yes...You are foolish..obviously you haven't embraced that before I'm offering you that.

Yes ...he is the ultimate sacrifice....there is no need of another.

Yes I can give the answer.no I am not unable.

No,It's not an attempt to escape anything.

You, are not beyond God's grace.Neither was Jeffrey Dahmer,you're in great company.Jeffrey realized the error of his ways.Will you?

I am responding to you in the way your demeanor invites.

I think you you are reducing your chances of coming to Christ.I can show you scripture saying you are a sinner,you don't believe that.You think morality is decided by the law of your location.I can show you Jesus came to save you,you don't know you're lost.I can tell you He died for your sins,you think it was a hiatus.I can tell you He is TheWay ,The Truth, and The Life,you still deny Him

You want to associate with believers,you're conversing with them now.But only to degrade them and their beliefs.

We are the Light.I'm illuminating you for what you are.

The reason you ask questions is to pick apart the answers...you are attempting to lead the conversation where you will...

You ask is He the ultimate sacrifice?

I ask you first...Do you believe in Him?Whom do you say he was?


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 27, 2009)

using the webster's definition he is most definitely the ultimate sacrifice.

ultimate: Being last in a series, process, or progression.

He was the final sacrifice that ever needs to be made for the redemption of sins.  No other sacrifice will ever be needed because there will never be a sin that Christ's blood cannot cover.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> I ask you first...Do you believe in Him? Whom do you say he was?



I believe in him, but almost certainly not in the way you mean. Jesus was a man that existed around 2000 years ago who was considered a prophet by a small minority of Jews. He died, and after his death a cult of followers began writing books about him. These books are now collected into what we know as the New Testament. Christianity, with Jesus at it's core, has since become an immensely successful religion.

I believe all of the above because there is adequate evidence to support my views. A few atheists don't even think Jesus existed, but I believe they're wrong. There is plenty of evidence that suggests that there was a man named Jesus who walked through Palestine around 2000 years ago.

What I do not believe is that Jesus was resurrected. I do not believe this because there simply is no verifiable evidence to support this statement. The only evidence I see is what I read in the Gospels. But the Gospels were written 30+ years after Jesus' death, by authors (and it's not even known for sure if the authors were really Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) who wanted to believe (and wanted to spread the idea) that Jesus was the messiah described in the OT. Much like other religious texts, the authors wrote scripture to reflect their beliefs on Jesus' fulfillment of OT prophecy.

Secondly, Jesus' resurrection is obviously a supernatural event. I have never seen any evidence which supports any supernatural arguments. For me, the supernatural's proper place is alongside religions and myths. Almost everything in the world has been explained in a naturalistic manner, without relying on supernatural explanations. Furthermore, those things which the world used to think were only explained through the use of supernatural arguments have since been proven wrong and replaced by naturalistic explanations. The Sun was previously thought (by a certain group of people) to be a God. We now have reason to believe that it is a giant fireball that we revolve around. Lightning was previously thought (by a certain group of people) to be wielded by a God and thrown down upon puny humans. We now have reason to believe that lightning is simply the discharge of electricity between the atmosphere and the ground. I see no reason why this will not continue. Creationism is the latest myth to enter the fray. It may take a few hundred more years, but I think history will repeat itself. Those things that science can not adequately answer at the moment (such as abiogenesis) will undoubtedly be answered in the future.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

Then you believe he was a liar and there is no need for you to bother to even try to follow any of his sayings or even be concerned with what Jesus did. You either believe He is who He said He was or you don't. But He does not give you the opportunity to say He was just a good man who lived 2000 years ago.


----------



## Banjo (Jan 27, 2009)

> What I do not believe is that Jesus was resurrected. I do not believe this because there simply is no verifiable evidence to support this statement.



What evidence would you accept?


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jan 27, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Feel the love.......
> 
> What hurts Him worse?  The fact that someone does not readily accept the gift and has questions, or the fact that one of His proclaimed followers uses callousness and insult that might be driving away those that seek knowledge?



You honestly think that is the reason? To seek knowledge?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior,



> What I do not believe is that Jesus was resurrected. I do not believe this because there simply is no verifiable evidence to support this statement.



Atheists use the same argumentation to support their atheistic worldview, i.e. "I don't see evidence for the existence of God." 

A couple points:

1. You cannot know all evidence. 
2. Because you cannot know all evidence, it is possible evidence exists that proves Christ's ressurection. 
3. Then it is possible that Christ was raised from the dead. 



> But the Gospels were written 30+ years after Jesus' death, by authors (and it's not even known for sure if the authors were really Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) who wanted to believe (and wanted to spread the idea) that Jesus was the messiah described in the OT. Much like other religious texts, the authors wrote scripture to reflect their beliefs on Jesus' fulfillment of OT prophecy.



1. First, this is not accurate and the assumption that I read into your statement, that 30 years time between authorship and copies, destroys the credibility of the NT record is absurd. Not even honest atheists could make this claim concerning the the historicity of ancient texts,  otherwise we have to scrap everything we know about history--period. I can prove this in another thread if you like under the subject "The historicity of the NT" 

2. Second, your claim concerning the followers of Jesus is illogical, presumptuous, and not even consistent with the NT record. In other words, the NT record doesn't even support your view that the followers of Jesus "wanted" Jesus and "wanted" this idea. 

In fact, after the murder of Jesus, ALL of the apostles scattered and went back to their lives with their hopes shattered. I understand that most folks do not understand the times in Jesus' day nor the thinking of the Jews at that time. Yes, the apostles believed Jesus was the Messiah. But when He was crucified that belief was shattered. Their concept of a Messiah was a savior that would free the Jewish people from Roman tyrany. They expected Jesus to become the King of Israel, conquer their enemies, and usher in peace and prosperity for Israel. 

What you have to explain is why these Jews with their hopes crushed and faith destroyed showed a remarkable change that led to the spread of Christianity globally. Not only that, but that it was something they were willing to trade possession, life, and limb for. (and no, the idea about people willing to die for their beliefs doesn't fly. you have to take all things into consideration). 



> Secondly, Jesus' resurrection is obviously a supernatural event. I have never seen any evidence which supports any supernatural arguments.



Again, you are using conventional atheist reasoning which doesn't hold water. 



> Furthermore, those things which the world used to think were only explained through the use of supernatural arguments have since been proven wrong and replaced by naturalistic explanations. The Sun was previously thought (by a certain group of people) to be a God. We now have reason to believe that it is a giant fireball that we revolve around. Lightning was previously thought (by a certain group of people) to be wielded by a God and thrown down upon puny humans. We now have reason to believe that lightning is simply the discharge of electricity between the atmosphere and the ground. I see no reason why this will not continue. Creationism is the latest myth to enter the fray. It may take a few hundred more years, but I think history will repeat itself. Those things that science can not adequately answer at the moment (such as abiogenesis) will undoubtedly be answered in the future.



You have great faith in science. You speak as an abosolutist with your science. Let me paraphase you, "Science doesn't have an explaination for every observed phenomena (and unobserved phenomena) but I believe and trust in science to explain it in the by and by. Christians have shown a similar trust in God regarding things they cannot explain, yet they are faulted for it and told they have "blind faith." Your statement shows your "blind faith" in your object of faith - naturalism. 

This is evidence to me of your religious nature--a common and universal characteristic of mankind. To compare the Christian religion to the worship of the sun is apples to oranges and misses the forrest for the trees. 

The reality is that every group of people on earth in every place throughout all time have had some form of religion. Belief in the supernatural is not a pre-requisite for a belief system to qualify as religious. If the belief system seeks to answer the basic fundamental questions of life: Who am I? How did I get here? Why am I here? ....

Then it is religious. Atheism/naturalism/materialsim is religious in its nature and even has faith and trust to accompany it. 

I would encourage you to ask yourself a few questions: 

1. Is it possible that your criteria for examining evidence is not reasonable? 

2. Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic?

3. Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented to you or is available? 

4. Are you opperating upon the pressuposition that the miraculous cannot occur? (if so, then you cannot objectively examine the data)

5. If you assume science can explain all phenomena then no miraculous evidence can be submitted as evidence to you. If you have done this, all you have done is made an assumption.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 27, 2009)

About the only thing one can do in response to those who don't believe is pray for a conviction of the Holy Spirit of God in the unbelievers life. 

If they don't trust the historical veracity of Scripture then you cannot win them over with arguments. 

I cannot see the sense in trying. Maybe I am wrong. I would love to be better able to handle those who do not believe and give them the answers they look for. 

I am not afraid to say that I am not able. Yet I still believe and will continue to hope and love and pray for those that do not.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> About the only thing one can do in response to those who don't believe is pray for a conviction of the Holy Spirit of God in the unbelievers life.
> 
> If they don't trust the historical veracity of Scripture then you cannot win them over with arguments.
> 
> ...



Don't just pray. Act. You must engage them.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 27, 2009)

Footjunior,

Here is perhaps a step into deeper water, a response that might help you to understand what others have said here.

Jesus had no fear of dying because perfect love casts out fear. He had no rational earthly reason to know He would be resurrected, but He had full understanding of His purpose, what His death would accomplish, and His Father's love and power to raise Him. It was this faith that allowed Him to accept the punishment  for all the sin committed by all the people for all time. Now, you nor I nor anyone else can wrap our minds around exactly what that would be like. We can't conceive of bearing the punishment we deserve for our own sin before a holy and righteous God, much less what Jesus bore. The pre-existant Son of God was cut off from the Father as punishment for what we did, not Him. For those who accept this payment in their behalf, they are adopted as sons and co-heirs with Christ. For those like yourself who reject this gift, you and they are left to pay their own penalty. Whether resurrected or not, such a payment is most certainly the ultimate sacrifice. That He was resurrected proves who He is and what He has accomplished, and what He offers to all who follow Him.

Since you reject His sacrifice and deny His resurrection, God says you will have to pay your own sin debt......eternal separation from Him.

If you consider that no big thing, so be it. You are on your own.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Don't just pray. Act. You must engage them.



Well to a point I agree with this. Should not have suggested its not worth trying. 

What I really meant was, once you have tried, such as with our good buddy footjunior here. You have tried. 

There are some people when they have made up their mind, they will not be convinced by my logic no matter how well it is layed out to them. (I know this because I have been married for years)

At this point I choose to pray.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Well to a point I agree with this. Should not have suggested its not worth trying.
> 
> What I really meant was, once you have tried, such as with our good buddy footjunior here. You have tried.
> 
> ...



Someone has to do that. You pray and I'll argue... That way both get done!


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Someone has to do that. You pray and I'll argue... That way both get done!



Oh I'm all for it and argue all you want. I just don't think it does a bit of good with folks like footjunior.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

Might not but it does pass the time.


----------



## Banjo (Jan 27, 2009)

Hey five...

Ever read any Van Til or Bahnsen?


----------



## Banjo (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Might not but it does pass the time.



And it does prove to be mildly entertaining....


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Might not but it does pass the time.





Banjo said:


> And it does prove to be mildly entertaining....



Haha! That may be so, but I got too much to do as it is!


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 27, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Hey five...
> 
> Ever read any Van Til or Bahnsen?



Yes, but not extensively. I agree with their apologetic philosophy though.


----------



## Israel (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Is it really the ultimate sacrifice when you know you're going to get resurrected?




I used to wonder about that, too Foot.

I mean, as a believer, even a new believer, I wondered about such matters, simply because at that time, I had not yet come to see what I now see.

Here's something else I used to consider, and I hope you can relate to it...it's a bit of foolishness, I know, but when I used to consider it, it fit with the "facts" but didn't gibe with my own perspective. Simply put, I thought Jesus walked according to my own understanding, before I learned he was going to remake me into his perspective.
It is this:

I would think:

Jesus, since you knew they were going to crucify you, and you would die at the top of that hill...why didn't you just drop the cross beam there in the square and say..."Look, I know you guys are gonna kill me, no way am I going to carry that beam up to the place of the skull" I mean, why add to your own torment? Why struggle and fall all beaten and bloody, why endure the huffing and puffing, the torture of every step...and be SO COMPLICIT IN YOUR OWN DEATH? Since you clearly saw the outcome...and you surely were bold and resolute, I know you wouldn't be afraid to say that, or do that. I mean, what were they gonna do? beat you some more? Threaten to "kill you" unless you carried it?
In short, "Jesus, why were you so willing to do what sinful men demanded of you, when I thought you only listened to your Father?"

I laugh a bit now at my own foolishness, neither knowing Jesus, (and because of not knowing Jesus) having no knowledge of the Father.
I had not yet learned the salvation of which Jesus spoke that could be ministered by the cross. 
The same cross that works in his instruction earlier to his disciples...
Matthew 5: 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Jesus words are so much more than advice and/or nice platitudes.
He is his word. He is inseparable from what he speaks...he is, if you can receive it, unity. We struggle with our dividedness and hypocrisy, thinking one thing, speaking another, and doing a third. Jesus abides in perfect unity with the God who is One, true to his thoughts, words, and deeds...and it is far more than a simple numerical reference of being one, it is being in perfect wholeness.
Sh'ma Israel, adoni elohenu, adoni echod.

Now, as to your original question, there is much I would say about the experience of Jesus in being the final sacrifice, but really time and space do not permit.
Suffice it to say that even as I saw through a glass even more obscure and darkly with reference to my immature understanding in the above narrative, I have come to learn in the following that the testing of our faith (and make no mistake, Jesus' faith was tested and found pure so as to be a fitting and all sufficient means of our salvation) there is far more to it than the assumption "Jesus was God, knew everything, so everything was easy for him"

Walking with Jesus on the inside is far different than observing him from the outside, or even a description of him from another disciple.
"Taste and see that the Lord is good" is not a review of a meal, but an invitation.


----------



## Banjo (Jan 27, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Yes, but not extensively. I agree with their apologetic philosophy though.



I thought so....


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Hey five...
> 
> Ever read any Van Til or Bahnsen?



Just so everyone can get on the same page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Van_Til

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Bahnsen


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 27, 2009)

we are assuming Jesus Christ knew he was going to be resurrected.  I haven't really looked, but I don't know that he knew for a fact.  There are things that god, the father, knows that Christ does not know, such as the timing of his returning.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> footjunior,
> 
> Atheists use the same argumentation to support their atheistic worldview, i.e. "I don't see evidence for the existence of God."
> 
> ...



Of course it was possible that Christ was raised from the dead. It's also possible that an angel really came down and told Muhammad the Qu'ran. It's also possible to say that there is a planet full of apes with ape civilizations fighting each other. This reminds me so much of what Bertrand Russell said concerning this thought pattern:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." - Bertrand Russell

I fully accept that Jesus Christ could have risen from the dead, just like I accept that the Noah's Ark story really could have happened just like the Bible said. But I do not believe these things because there is inadequate evidence to support them. If more evidence pops up to support these events, then I'm sure many people would believe that they really happened.



> 1. First, this is not accurate and the assumption that I read into your statement, that 30 years time between authorship and copies, destroys the credibility of the NT record is absurd. Not even honest atheists could make this claim concerning the the historicity of ancient texts,  otherwise we have to scrap everything we know about history--period. I can prove this in another thread if you like under the subject "The historicity of the NT"



That one fact does not destroy the credibility of the NT, which is why I didn't say that it did.



> 2. Second, your claim concerning the followers of Jesus is illogical, presumptuous, and not even consistent with the NT record. In other words, the NT record doesn't even support your view that the followers of Jesus "wanted" Jesus and "wanted" this idea.



After Jesus' death, Christianity took off without any texts. 30+ years later, when Christianity was growing larger very quickly, the gospels popped up. You're telling me that it is illogical for the authors of these texts, who were writing for one specific purpose (to provide texts to this new religious movement), to want their Messiah to fulfill OT prophecy?



> In fact, after the murder of Jesus, ALL of the apostles scattered and went back to their lives with their hopes shattered. I understand that most folks do not understand the times in Jesus' day nor the thinking of the Jews at that time. Yes, the apostles believed Jesus was the Messiah. But when He was crucified that belief was shattered. Their concept of a Messiah was a savior that would free the Jewish people from Roman tyrany. They expected Jesus to become the King of Israel, conquer their enemies, and usher in peace and prosperity for Israel.



I agree with this, but it does not change possibility that the authors of the Gospels (whomever they were) simply embellished the texts to reflect current myths which were circulating Palestine at the time. These myths (virgin birth, resurrection, etc.) were core to pre-NT Christian's belief system. You're still saying that it's illogical for the authors to reflect the belief in these myths in the Gospels?



> What you have to explain is why these Jews with their hopes crushed and faith destroyed showed a remarkable change that led to the spread of Christianity globally. Not only that, but that it was something they were willing to trade possession, life, and limb for. (and no, the idea about people willing to die for their beliefs doesn't fly. you have to take all things into consideration).



This is the exact same thing that happened to Joseph Smith. There's evidence that an angel really did show Joseph Smith some divinely inspired text. There were people who said that an angel showed them the Golden Plates and that they had heard God's voice testifying that the book had been translated by the power of God. Mormonism spread rapidly, much like the early Christian church. Joseph Smith was persecuted. Much like the Romans did to early Christians, the government of the United States persecuted the Mormons. The Missouri governor declared that Mormons be "exterminated or driven from the state." Smith was arrested and thrown in jail, where he was killed by an angry mob. Smith was immediately viewed as a martyr by the early Mormon church.

How do you explain away the fact that these Golden Plates were handed down to Smith by an angel? How do you explain the fact that people witnessed an angel showing them the Golden Plates and that they heard God's voice? How do you explain the rapid growth of the Mormon church even after Smith's death? People died for their faith in Joseph Smith.

How do you explain the spread of Mormonism even after Joseph Smith's death?



> You have great faith in science. You speak as an abosolutist with your science. Let me paraphase you, "Science doesn't have an explaination for every observed phenomena (and unobserved phenomena) but I believe and trust in science to explain it in the by and by. Christians have shown a similar trust in God regarding things they cannot explain, yet they are faulted for it and told they have "blind faith." Your statement shows your "blind faith" in your object of faith - naturalism.



Here's the difference between my belief that science will explain the currently unexplainable and Christians belief that God will reveal things they cannot explain: Science has the track record, God does not. Science has continuously explained things. Look around you. What do you see? The products of science.

So is it illogical to assume that science will continue to provide answers to the currently unanswerable? I think not. My question is where is the track record for God explaining anything?

Why would it be logical to assume that God will reveal the unanswerable? Look at some of the answers provided on this forum: "I'll add this to my list of questions to ask God when I get to Heaven." "Some things don't make logical sense, but that doesn't mean that they didn't happen." "You cannot use your puny human logic to attempt to understand some events in the Bible, you must rely on faith."

Do these answers provide any explanation? No, because they rely on faith, blind faith.



> This is evidence to me of your religious nature--a common and universal characteristic of mankind. To compare the Christian religion to the worship of the sun is apples to oranges and misses the forrest for the trees.



So says the Christian. I'm sure, at the time, believers in the gods of Olympus thought it was nonsense to compare their religion to earlier religions. Christianity will be viewed in the same light after it's downfall. The same goes for Islam. Besides, I wasn't even comparing Christianity to the worship of the sun, I was simply drawing a comparison of how the myths of all religions eventually are proven wrong.



> Atheism/naturalism/materialsim is religious in its nature and even has faith and trust to accompany it.



Please provide reasoning to support your argument that atheism is religious.



> 1. Is it possible that your criteria for examining evidence is not reasonable?



Yes. But until someone provides some sort of logic of why it isn't reasonable, I will continue to think that it is reasonable.



> 2. Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic?



No. See the Russell's teapot analogy above.



> 3. Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented to you or is available?



Yes. I'm sure most of you think otherwise however.



> 4. Are you opperating upon the pressuposition that the miraculous cannot occur? (if so, then you cannot objectively examine the data)



No. I'm fully aware that the supernatural may exist. But I've always been guided by a principle when attempting to determine whether an event was supernatural or not: 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It's that simple. If you make an extraordinary claim, then it's going to require extraordinary evidence for me to believe it.



> 5. If you assume science can explain all phenomena then no miraculous evidence can be submitted as evidence to you. If you have done this, all you have done is made an assumption.



I honestly don't think science will be able to explain all phenomena. There may be some things (For example: Where did the singularity come from?) that are unanswerable due to the laws which govern our universe. Look at this excerpt from Richard Dawkins, which describes my view exactly:

"Is there a limit to what science can explain? Very possibly. But in that case, what on earth makes anyone think religion can do any better? I once reached this point when I asked the then professor of astrophysics at Oxford to explain the origin of the universe to me. He did so, and I posed my supplementary: 'Where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?' He smiled: 'Ah, now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand over to our good friend the chaplain.' My immediate thought was, 'But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef?' If science itself cannot say where the laws of physics ultimately come from, there is no reason to expect that religion will do any better and rather good reasons to think it will do worse." - Richard Dawkins

There may be some things that science cannot explain, but when has religion ever had a better answer? The answers they give are full of faith and dogma, not evidence.


----------



## Ray Whithead (Jan 27, 2009)

I'm a new Christian and in no way feel I can hold with you in any type debate on religion. But I have 5 daughters and can't tell you how many times my heart has been broken just watching them grow up. To hear them crying in the middle of the night because some boy broke their heart. Or to see the pain they went thru during labor with their own children. And I knew all along that these were temporary hurts, things would get better and that in the end they would be happier for it.  These two examples are enough, and believe me there were many more, for me understand some of the pain GOD was going thru on that day. But to watch them be beaten and nail to a cross to die and to do this for the salvation others, is something that I can not imagine. SO yes I believe it was the ultimate sacrifice.

Whether you believe it or not, God loves you and I pray that some day you will see his love.


----------



## Banjo (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Of course it was possible that Christ was raised from the dead. It's also possible that an angel really came down and told Muhammad the Qu'ran. It's also possible to say that there is a planet full of apes with ape civilizations fighting each other. This reminds me so much of what Bertrand Russell said concerning this thought pattern:
> 
> "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." - Bertrand Russell
> 
> ...



Dude....

for someone who doesn't believe in Christianity or religion, you sure spend a lot of time trying to refute it.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

"This is the exact same thing that happened to Joseph Smith. There's evidence that an angel really did show Joseph Smith some divinely inspired text. There were people who said that an angel showed them the Golden Plates and that they had heard God's voice testifying that the book had been translated by the power of God. Mormonism spread rapidly, much like the early Christian church. Joseph Smith was persecuted. Much like the Romans did to early Christians, the government of the United States persecuted the Mormons. The Missouri governor declared that Mormons be "exterminated or driven from the state." Smith was arrested and thrown in jail, where he was killed by an angry mob. Smith was immediately viewed as a martyr by the early Mormon church.

How do you explain away the fact that these Golden Plates were handed down to Smith by an angel? How do you explain the fact that people witnessed an angel showing them the Golden Plates and that they heard God's voice? How do you explain the rapid growth of the Mormon church even after Smith's death? People died for their faith in Joseph Smith.

How do you explain the spread of Mormonism even after Joseph Smith's death?"

Where are the golden discs? No one but Smith received this revelation. There's the difference. There is no evidence for Mormonism. Mormon beliefs also radically shift from time to time with "special revelations".


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

Also please come up with someone better than Bartram Russell to use as a reference. He's been pretty well refuted already by not only Christians but Muslims and everyone else.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 27, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> we are assuming Jesus Christ knew he was going to be resurrected.  I haven't really looked, but I don't know that he knew for a fact.  There are things that god, the father, knows that Christ does not know, such as the timing of his returning.




Jesus was intimately familiar with Messianic prophesy as well as His communion with the Father.

Search John 10:18 and tell us what you think.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I honestly don't think science will be able to explain all phenomena. There may be some things (For example: Where did the singularity come from?) that are unanswerable due to the laws which govern our universe. Look at this excerpt from Richard Dawkins, which describes my view exactly:
> 
> "Is there a limit to what science can explain? Very possibly. But in that case, what on earth makes anyone think religion can do any better? I once reached this point when I asked the then professor of astrophysics at Oxford to explain the origin of the universe to me. He did so, and I posed my supplementary: 'Where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?' He smiled: 'Ah, now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand over to our good friend the chaplain.' My immediate thought was, 'But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef?' If science itself cannot say where the laws of physics ultimately come from, there is no reason to expect that religion will do any better and rather good reasons to think it will do worse." - Richard Dawkins
> 
> There may be some things that science cannot explain, but when has religion ever had a better answer? The answers they give are full of faith and dogma, not evidence.


 
If you are searching for the Truth...  The first thing you should do is quite listening or reading Dawkins... That man is a truely one of the worlds FOOLS.

DB BB


----------



## Israel (Jan 27, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> we are assuming Jesus Christ knew he was going to be resurrected.  I haven't really looked, but I don't know that he knew for a fact.  There are things that god, the father, knows that Christ does not know, such as the timing of his returning.




I believe that Jesus understood he was the resurrection and the life...both in calling himself that in John 11:25...and in this reference....

John 2: 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?  But he spake of the temple of his body.

But as an aside, there is a vast difference between the confession of a thing, and having it worked out in your flesh.
This is where I believe the testing of Jesus' faith, and the accompanying suffering for that faith entered in.
The consequences of our confession of faith always have a cost.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 27, 2009)

Psalm 14:1 gives the Christian the "authority" to call someone a fool.

But Dawkins is no idiot.  He does discuss indepth the Christian belief system, in which he has an extensive primary, secondary and post-secondary education.  It is all only a discussion of possibilites and probabilities without requiring blind belief or blind faith.  It is a good thing to know what one believes and why.  And that can be discussed without interjection of human emotion.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 27, 2009)

Just look at and understand his dying prayer.


----------



## Lowjack (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Is it really the ultimate sacrifice when you know you're going to get resurrected?


Would you let me torture you and killed you even if you knew you were going to be resurrected ?


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Also please come up with someone better than Bartram Russell to use as a reference. He's been pretty well refuted already by not only Christians but Muslims and everyone else.



This is simply more ad hominem. Since he as "been pretty well refuted", you shouldn't have a hard time refuting his logic, right?

Unable to refute arguments, people often turn to the people making the arguments. Dawkins is a genius, and not because of his God Delusion book. If you ever read The Selfish Gene, you will understand why he is regarded as one of the top evolutionary biologists in the world.

I'm also waiting to hear an answer on:

"How do you explain the rise of Mormonism after Joseph Smith's death?"


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> This is simply more ad hominem. Since he as "been pretty well refuted", you shouldn't have a hard time refuting his logic, right?
> 
> Unable to refute arguments, people often turn to the people making the arguments. Dawkins is a genius, and not because of his God Delusion book. If you ever read The Selfish Gene, you will understand why he is regarded as one of the top evolutionary biologists in the world.
> 
> ...



You and Dawkins are self congratulatory "intellectuals" who walk around believing the inerrancy of their own "original" ideas. No one of course has EVER thought what you think.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 27, 2009)

Footjunior,

Dawkins' question regarding the origin of scientific laws ('Where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?') is particularly interesting. What is your answer to the question and specifically how do you know? The mere fact that he would reason to ask the question implies he believes there is an answer, otherwise, why pose it at all. 

Chalk me up as curious on this point.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I'm also waiting to hear an answer on:
> 
> "How do you explain the rise of Mormonism after Joseph Smith's death?"



Easy. He offered something to people who had a half idea of what Christianity was. He learned his ideas from the stump preaching of the 2nd great awakening. This is what happens when people are only converted not taught.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Easy. He offered something to people who had a half idea of what Christianity was. He learned his ideas from the stump preaching of the 2nd great awakening. This is what happens when people are only converted not taught.




So fundamentalists are the only ones both converted and taught?

Sounds like you explained not just Mormonism, but every belief system that has come down the pike.
Even fundamentalists can not agree on every point found in the Bible.


----------



## j_seph (Jan 27, 2009)

So foot junior,
Where did the Universe come from


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> So fundamentalists are the only ones both converted and taught?
> 
> Sounds like you explained not just Mormonism, but every belief system that has come down the pike.
> Even fundamentalists can not agree on every point found in the Bible.



No. We can be taught and disagree with points that make us differ on our ideas of the relationship with God. Arminism and Calvinism for instance.

Anyone curious on Mormons should either view the PBS special they did on them or actually sit and talk to them when they come around.


----------



## Israel (Jan 27, 2009)

As to the foolishness of what I believe, I cannot deny it.
You are right though, in many of your contentions since God has rigged the whole deal from the beginning, he's the only one that will allow anyone to see him, not unlike your infinitesimally small tea pot. 
But he does give us a hint...stop looking with a telescope or microscope, there's another sensing device far better suited to his discovery. And he tells us to seek, and keep seeking, knock, and keep knocking. I came to a place where this was all that had any meaning to me...either God is, and Jesus is who he says...or quite simply, none of it has any meaning. I can't make it an important question for you, it either is, or isn't. And I found as I asked, questions were being asked of me, I found as I sought, I was being sought.
The question is always personal.
Has God rigged the game for you to win, or lose?
How good do you think he is? 
Or how evil?
He is prepared to be for you what you believe.
Friend or foe.
Even then he tells you what to choose...don't remain his enemy.
Has this whole thing only been a concoction to allow you to taste what could be wonderful, only to have it stolen from you...or to get a glimpse of even better things awaiting?

I can only answer for me.
And God has convinced me, there is absolutely nothing I can do of myself to make you see it as I do. All I can do is tell you what I see.
What you do with, or about it, is not my business.
God doesn't want me to know the frustration of being meddlesome.
Life is good.
Because God is good.
He is the Life.
Even the most rudimentary amoeba knows enough to avoid a hostile pH when possible...simply because life...is good.

Ultimately each man is judged out of himself...you can't say you like life, but hate the author...and each man will be given ample proof of how much he loved his own life.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 27, 2009)

Very good point, celticfisherman.  To get answers, folks go to the source.  That means listening for comprehension whenever someone with a different belief/education (like your Mormon example) is willing to take the time.

Too many who follow the fundamental Christian doctrine are not willing to do that.  They push away, get personal and insulting and are not open to discussion of differing opinions.  Sometimes it is because they are weak in their own beliefs and have no answers other than "have faith."  Other times it is just pure inability to think outside the box because of a lifetime of indoctrination in one way of thinking that has grown to be exclusive of others.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

Thank you. I spent 2 hours with 2 Mormon missionaries in my den this past fall. I LOVED IT!!! Really ticked me off when the Jehovah's Witnesses wouldn't sit and talk with me.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Footjunior,
> 
> Dawkins' question regarding the origin of scientific laws ('Where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?') is particularly interesting. What is your answer to the question and specifically how do you know? The mere fact that he would reason to ask the question implies he believes there is an answer, otherwise, why pose it at all.
> 
> Chalk me up as curious on this point.



My answer is I don't know. Dawkins' answer is I don't know. Just about everyone's answer (except for some believers) is I don't know.

Dawkins was asking a rhetorical question. He knew that no reasonable person would assume they have an answer for such a question, yet many believe they have the answer: God. Dawkins point is that answering with "God" provides about as much evidence as "I don't know."

If this does not answer your question, just let me know.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior,

I will reply to you when I can give it the time it deserves.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> You and Dawkins are self congratulatory "intellectuals" who walk around believing the inerrancy of their own "original" ideas. No one of course has EVER thought what you think.



What do you mean by your last sentence?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 27, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Dude....
> 
> for someone who doesn't believe in Christianity or religion, you sure spend a lot of time trying to refute it.



He is Dawkin's disciple. Like master like servant.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> He is Dawkin's disciple. Like master like servant.



More ad hominem. After reading The God Delusion I can assure you that I disagree with some of Dawkins' claims.

I find it funny that no atheists ever claim to be followers of Dawkins or Darwin, it's always Christians that make that assumption for them. It's almost as if that's the only way they know how to think of other people: People must be blind followers of someone.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> What do you mean by your last sentence?



That of course you guys are the first to question this. And all the rest of us are just not smart enough to figure out that God is a shame or an evolutionary trick played by our minds.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 27, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> He is Dawkin's disciple. Like master like servant.




Ummmm, I don't think so.  Dawkins is not peddling a religious belief system.  Footjunior is only seeking to expand his understanding of the arguments for/against and seems like he is mature enough to find his own way.

It is as simple as that.  I have seen no attempt to convert or dissuade except from Christian fundamentalists.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> More ad hominem. After reading The God Delusion I can assure you that I disagree with some of Dawkins' claims.
> 
> I find it funny that no atheists ever claim to be followers of Dawkins or Darwin, it's always Christians that make that assumption for them. It's almost as if that's the only way they know how to think of other people: People must be blind followers of someone.



Do you know what Ad hom is? I would actually have to be making an argument for it to apply...lol 

I should have used smilies, but you claim to be in the dawkins camp. A pupil as it were, a disciple. 

But stop calling the kettle black mr. teapot. You already called what I follow "blind" which by implication means I follow something in ignorance. 

My worldview is reasonable, evidential, intellectual, et. I am not ignorant, blind, foolish, et. Nor do I think you are or that your worldview isn't thought out. 

I expect the same respect.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Do you know what Ad hom is? I would actually have to be making an argument for it to apply...lol



Well you said I was Dawkins disciple. Did I miss something? Instead of talking about me, I don't see why you talk about my arguments. Instead of talking about Dawkins, why not talk about Dawkins arguments?



> I should have used smilies, but you claim to be in the dawkins camp. A pupil as it were, a disciple.



Please quote me where I said I was Dawkin's pupil...



> But stop calling the kettle black mr. teapot. You already called what I follow "blind" which by implication means I follow something in ignorance.
> 
> My worldview is reasonable, evidential, intellectual, et. I am not ignorant, blind, foolish, et. Nor do I think you are or that your worldview isn't thought out.
> 
> I expect the same respect.



Well I'd like to see your response to my previous thread. You said it would take time, so I understand.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Ummmm, I don't think so.  Dawkins is not peddling a religious belief system.  Footjunior is only seeking to expand his/her understanding of the arguments for/against and seems like he/she is mature enough to find his/her own way.
> 
> It is as simple as that.  I have seen no attempt to convert or dissuade except from Christian fundamentalists.



Yes he is. Humanism is a religious belief system.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yes he is. Humanism is a religious belief system.



Any reasoning behind this?


----------



## Banjo (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Any reasoning behind this?



Humanism is where man sets himself up as God.  He is his own lawgiver.

They are pretty good at indoctrination too....just study John Dewey and his educational system.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yes he is. Humanism is a religious belief system.



No, he considers himself a "cultural Christian" which is more civic than it is religious.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

Read up on Humanism. It is the modern ends to Atheism. Atheism is a religion.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> More ad hominem. After reading The God Delusion I can assure you that I disagree with some of Dawkins' claims.
> 
> I find it funny that no atheists ever claim to be followers of Dawkins or Darwin, it's always Christians that make that assumption for them. It's almost as if that's the only way they know how to think of other people: People must be blind followers of someone.




Everybody follows some one or some thing, blind or not. As you pick and choose from many sources what you will and won't believe, remember the tracks you follow soon become your own.

Oh,  ... and everybody worships some one or some thing also.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 27, 2009)

Israel said:


> But as an aside, there is a vast difference between the confession of a thing, and having it worked out in your flesh.
> This is where I believe the testing of Jesus' faith, and the accompanying suffering for that faith entered in.
> The consequences of our confession of faith always have a cost.



exactly.  this is more of what I was talking about.  

We all know the Bible says God will bless us for our tithes and I'm sure most of believe that and have experienced it in our lives.  Still, it doesn't always mean that the tithe check is easy to write out on Sunday morning when the rent is due on Monday.  I guess another way to say it is that "talk is cheap."  Yes, Christ knew he would be resurrected, either in the flesh again, or in the spirit, as we all will one day.  But that obviously did not make his plight much easier, as he prayed in Luke 22:41-42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Read up on Humanism. It is the modern ends to Atheism. Atheism is a religion.



Reasoning?


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

No. You have not reasoned your way anywhere. You assumed.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No. You have not reasoned your way anywhere. You assumed.



I'm asking for reasoning behind your statement that atheism is a religion. Love the use of smilies, keep it up.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I'm asking for reasoning behind your statement that atheism is a religion. Love the use of smilies, keep it up.



You have a moral code supposedly from evolution. You have an answer for the after life. And you have an answer for the existence of man. Also you have an answer for the meaning of life. And you believe there is no need for redemption so you answered the question of Salvation.

Anything else needed in a religion?


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

Now all you need is a bad hair preacher to teach it on every street corner and you too can qualify as a 501(C)3.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> You have an answer for the after life. And you have an answer for the existence of man. Also you have an answer for the meaning of life.



Please quote me where I said I had the answer to any of these things.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

You must. You are an atheist. These issues don't bother you because you have an answer. If they bother you then you are not an atheist.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> You must. You are an atheist. These issues don't bother you because you have an answer. If they bother you then you are not an atheist.



I am an atheist. I don't have the answers to these questions yet that does not bother me.

Yet again you make assumptions about me, do not back it up with anything I have said, and continue to think that you know me better than I know myself. This should be a case study for the gift of discernment.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Well you said I was Dawkins disciple. Did I miss something? Instead of talking about me, I don't see why you talk about my arguments. Instead of talking about Dawkins, why not talk about Dawkins arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Like I said, I should have included smilies. I was joking around. Doesn't come accross in print.


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 27, 2009)

*You quibble over semantics.*



footjunior said:


> Well you said I was Dawkins disciple. Did I miss something?
> 
> Please quote me where I said I was Dawkin's pupil.../QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> footjunior said:
> 
> 
> > Well you said I was Dawkins disciple. Did I miss something?
> ...


----------



## gtparts (Jan 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> You must. You are an atheist. These issues don't bother you because you have an answer. If they bother you then you are not an atheist.





footjunior said:


> I am an atheist. I don't have the answers to these questions yet that does not bother me.
> 
> Yet again you make assumptions about me, do not back it up with anything I have said, and continue to think that you know me better than I know myself. This should be a case study for the gift of discernment.



The basic premise of atheism is logically unsupportable. Without the capability to exhaust all possibilities of discovery, one is foolish to make the assertion that God unequivocally does not exist. The agnostic has infinitely greater standing for his position from a logic standpoint. 

If one doesn't have the single answer that counts to the question of God's existence, his position is built on faith, his belief that God does not exist. 

FJ, you are a person of incredible faith, but it is placed in yourself and your ability to reason. Strip away all that you have read and heard and you are left with this one knowable fact: Footjunior will cease to exist as you understand yourself. Your existence has no future and no purpose beyond your attempt to extend or terminate that existence based on your feelings.

Do you understand how worthless and pathetic such a worldview is?

I ache for the emptiness that you must feel when you are all alone by yourself.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 27, 2009)

Beatles got some of it right , but missed on the important stuff.

Nowhere Man Lyrics
Artist(Band):The Beatles

He's a real nowhere Man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.

Doesn't have a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like you and me?
Nowhere Man, please listen,
You don't know what you're missin',
Nowhere Man, the world is at your command.

(lead guitar)

He's as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see,
Nowhere Man can you see me at all?

Nowhere Man, don't worry,
Take your time, don't hurry,
Leave it all 'till somebody else
lends you a hand.

Doesn't have a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Nowhere man please listen,
you don't know what your missin'
Nowhere Man, the world is at your command

He's a real Nowhere Man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 27, 2009)

*You may believe that*



footjunior said:


> matthewsman said:
> 
> 
> > I'd hardly consider that evidence of me being a "pupil" of Dawkins. I don't follow some one or some thing like a sheep. As I said before, I agree with many of Dawkins arguments yet disagree with some of them as well. I was an atheist long before Dawkins really started being a prominent activist.
> ...


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

gtparts said:


> The basic premise of atheism is logically unsupportable. Without the capability to exhaust all possibilities of discovery, one is foolish to make the assertion that God unequivocally does not exist. The agnostic has infinitely greater standing for his position from a logic standpoint.



You are assuming that when atheists say something like, "God doesn't exist." they actually mean that they know 100% that God doesn't exist. Without going into an argument about definition... if that is your definition of an atheist, then I am not an atheist, nor is Richard Dawkins, nor is just about any other atheist. By atheist I mean atheist towards manifest gods, yet agnostic towards pure deism. A person who claims that they know 100% that the deistic god doesn't exist is a foolish person. Most atheists are not like this. If you watch the interview with Dawkins and Ben Stein towards the end of the movie "Expelled",  you will understand what I'm talking about.



> If one doesn't have the single answer that counts to the question of God's existence, his position is built on faith, his belief that God does not exist.



Yes you are correct. I have a "belief" that God does not exist, but do not confuse this type of belief with religious belief. I also believe that if I hold an apple in the air and let go, it will fall to the ground.



> FJ, you are a person of incredible faith, but it is placed in yourself and your ability to reason. Strip away all that you have read and heard and you are left with this one knowable fact: Footjunior will cease to exist as you understand yourself. Your existence has no future and no purpose beyond your attempt to extend or terminate that existence based on your feelings.



You are correct. Footjunior will cease to exist when I die. There is nothing wrong with this, as far as I'm concerned.



> Do you understand how worthless and pathetic such a worldview is?



Maybe worthless in your eyes. This notion that your life here on earth is like an instant in time compared to the eternity you will spend in Heaven is a dangerous one, as seen by the actions of 9/11 and the abortion clinic bombers.

To me the truth is more important than wishful thinking. Would it be nice to live forever in paradise? Sure. Do I think that this wishful thinking is rooted in reality? No. There is no evidence that the Christian God is real, just like there is no evidence that Zeus exists or Allah is real or Thor is real or any other of the countless gods that have been thought up in the minds of humans.

This all sounds very similar to Pascal's Wager.



> I ache for the emptiness that you must feel when you are all alone by yourself.



I'm alone by myself sometimes when I'm up here at GT, but I don't feel lonely at all. I know that I have a loving family and girlfriend that I see all the time. I live my life to the fullest and I really don't have any regrets. I have never made an assumption about how you must feel at any time because I don't pretend to know you.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 27, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> footjunior said:
> 
> 
> > If you claim to be a product of a movement,then claim a person is a leader of that movement,but you don't agree with him...Well one of two things is happening.You are either a liar or delusional.
> ...


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 27, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> WTM45...I'm addressing this to you here rather than in PM because it may help others to also understand how I feel,and because I'm not saying anything that I feel the need to make private.
> 
> You seem to be a decent enough guy.I've enjoyed your posts on other parts of this message board.I apreciate your service..I will take all that into consideration as I attempt to explain something to you one time.
> 
> ...



I feel we have much in common, MM.  Thank you for thinking of me as decent.  I, in no way was I being insulting in my references to fundamentalism.  In fact, I have never known a Christian (I guess until now)who felt fundamentalism association was insulting nor anything to be ashamed of.

Christian Fundamentalism is an unquestioning belief in God's Word.  I am very knowledgable in that from my years of study, education and upbringing.
Some parts of the Christian belief system require faith, which is a blind belief and unquestioning of certain topics that can not be explained or supported with physical/scientific evidence.

Look at things more on a large scale view rather than regional.  I state firmly that all of us are pretty much born into the Christian belief system (ESPECIALLY since we were born in the South and in the USA) in juxtaposition to those born into other religious belief systems simply due to the geographic location of their birthplaces.

It is only a discussion.  It is not an attempt to persuade, except for certain folks.  Emotions really have no place in such discussion but it quickly shows up when any basic tenent is questioned and no answer is available.  Respect is always present in my posts.  Nor do I seek it for myself. 
I'll take no personal offense from anything said by anybody regarding religious topics.  It is not productive in any way.  All are entitled to their opinions and beliefs.  And I believe it is a good thing when people are happy in what they believe and live for.


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 27, 2009)

*try to follow this*




footjunior said:


> matthewsman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm neither. Unlike some other people, I agree or disagree with arguments, not with people. Dawkins is a person, and he makes arguments that I agree with and some that I disagree with. What is so hard to understand about this?
> ...


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 27, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> I have had many teachers....I didn't agree with everyword they ever said,but I was their pupil.I took from them what I could.Many of your ideas come from Dawkins,you are a follower....It hurts you to admit that you submit your mind to anything.  You,my friend,are following a false doctrine.You don't have the fortitude to admit it to your family.It sounds as ridiculous to you as it does to them.So you act it out passive-agressively through an internet forum where you know no one and attempt to know no one.
> 
> When you get big one dayyou will grow your own ideas and belief system rather than latching on to whatever seems to be cool and rebellious to you at the time.
> 
> I'll be interested in watching you grow up...



What does that gain in the discussion?  Seriously.  Why the underhanded insults?


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 27, 2009)

*did the same thing myself*



WTM45 said:


> What does that gain in the discussion?  Seriously.  Why the underhanded insults?



He will mature.We all thought we knew it all and had the bull by the horns....Philisophically deep and so forth and so on...

I'd really be interested in meeting him one day after he's married and has reconciled himself to God and has a few years under his belt.

I have a young friend that gets over here at Thanksgiving and for various cookouts and such.We started out in much the same manner.He later realized I was right...

As far as underhanded?He relates better to that....


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 27, 2009)

But, MM, thinking you are more mature than another is a little self-aggrandizing.
I'd think simply sharing how your beliefs have changed/affected you life delivers a message much better than talking down.

But then, what do I know?
Have a good day!


----------



## j_seph (Jan 27, 2009)

Ask you this again
How do you explain the creation of the universe w/o a higher power


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 27, 2009)

j_seph said:


> Ask you this again
> How do you explain the creation of the universe w/o a higher power




Books have been written on that.  It is not easy to answer.  It is as hard to explain how the universe came about as it is for a Creationist to explain what materials God used and how He created it from nothing.

It takes faith to believe in either.


----------



## j_seph (Jan 27, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Books have been written on that. It is not easy to answer. It is as hard to explain how the universe came about as it is for a Creationist to explain what materials God used and how He created it from nothing.
> 
> It takes faith to believe in either.


 The point I was trying to get across to footie was that if he did not believe in supernatural and a greater being and the christ could not be resurected then how can he explain how it all started. It had to begin from a higher power. It did not just HAPPEN!


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 27, 2009)

Explaining and understanding the size and scope of space, which is infinite, and our galaxy is just a speck within it, is very difficult for the human mind to comprehend.
The idea of a deity helps the human mind relieve the fears and find reason for their existance.

This is outside the original poster's question.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 27, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Books have been written on that.  It is not easy to answer.  It is as hard to explain how the universe came about as it is for a Creationist to explain what materials God used and how He created it from nothing.
> 
> It takes faith to believe in either.



yes it does take faith. However the more we study the more we realize what God worked with and what he did.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jan 27, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Explaining and understanding the size and scope of space, which is infinite, and our galaxy is just a speck within it, is very difficult for the human mind to comprehend.
> The idea of a deity helps the human mind relieve the fears and find reason for their existance.
> 
> This is outside the original poster's question.


 

Could it be that the Word of God is written in the heart of Man?

DB BB


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 28, 2009)

*What??*



Doc_Holliday23 said:


> we are assuming Jesus Christ knew he was going to be resurrected.  I haven't really looked, but I don't know that he knew for a fact.



Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth 

Matthew 26:61 And said, This [fellow] said, I (Jesus) am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. 

Mark 8:31 And he (Jesus) began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 


These are just a few examples from the NT.


According to the NT, Jesus most certainly knew, and prophesied it.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

Missed you yesterday, Dixie!
Very noble gesture, taking a day off in respect to Woody!  In hindsight, I should have done the same.

Very good points with Biblical references.  It still makes me wonder why Christ voiced the prayer he voiced while on the cross?
Was it truly that he felt God had forsaken him when he was in on the entire salvation plan?
It is very common for dying humans to call out to "Jesus," "God" or "Mother" at the hour of their death.  Is it a human trait?


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 28, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Missed you yesterday, Dixie!
> Very noble gesture, taking a day off in respect to Woody!  In hindsight, I should have done the same.
> 
> Very good points with Biblical references.  It still makes me wonder why Christ voiced the prayer he voiced while on the cross?
> ...



like I said Christ knew it in his spirit, but that doesn't mean it wasn't difficult.  his earthly body, including his earthly mind, had a very difficult time with it.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> like I said Christ knew it in his spirit, but that doesn't mean it wasn't difficult.  his earthly body, including his earthly mind, had a very difficult time with it.



As I am positive anyone would, and will have, at the hour of their death.  We will all face that someday.
It is humbling and sad indeed, when a human dies for their religious beliefs.  Especially when they had the power to prevent that from happening, but voluntarily became the sacrifice.

Therefore, I see no reason to openly judge those of weaker faith.
Jesus professed and lived the greatest human example of faith ever seen on this earth.  It is documented and true.

And at the hour of his death, even his great faith was tested.  
We should show consideration to those of lesser or no faith, as they may be in their moment of doubt.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 28, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Missed you yesterday, Dixie!
> Very noble gesture, taking a day off in respect to Woody!  In hindsight, I should have done the same.
> 
> Very good points with Biblical references.  It still makes me wonder why Christ voiced the prayer he voiced while on the cross?
> ...



There is every reason to believe the Father did indeed turn away, leaving Jesus alone with the sin of the world weighing upon Him, if only for the briefest moment, for Holy God can not, will not entertain sin in His presence.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

gtparts said:


> There is every reason to believe the Father did indeed turn away, leaving Jesus alone with the sin of the world weighing upon Him, if only for the briefest moment, for Holy God can not, will not entertain sin in His presence.




That is exactly what is taught in the belief.  But Jesus' tested faith did not condemn him.  The sacrifice was completed.
God might not have been looking, but He surely knew everything going on.  He is omnicient.

My point is just as I said, or tried to say.  Why do fundamentalists judge someone with weak or no faith, as they just might be in their moment of testing and are seeking answers?


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 28, 2009)

*We Don't..*



WTM45 said:


> Why do fundamentalists judge someone with weak or no faith, as they just might be in their moment of testing and are seeking answers?




You are still hung up on that..

I don't judge people because of their faith or lack of faith...I will judge them by their actions.

This guy you are steady defending...I'm not sure if you grasped what he was trying to do.

He was trying to disprove Dawkins.Dawkins said fundementalists couldn't be swayed.He believed they could.

He posed those questions to try to sway fundementalists.He wasn't asking a thing he wanted to know.He wanted to prove himself able to do what Dawkins couldn't.A student becoming the teacher sort of thing.He was using what he learned in his background to leverage his arguments.

There was nothing respectful about what he did or how he did it.I asked him in his first set of posts why he needed those answers.He didn't offer why.

Had he swayed someone,maybe a loved one of yours,and caused them to doubt their faith or threw a stumbling block in front of them before they were saved would you be so defensive of how he was treated?

He is not in a moment of testing,he was doing the testing.He will back up,regroup,and try a different tact.
this was nothing casual to him.You don't spend the time he did in a "tough quarter" to satisfy a whim.If I had had a girlfriend at home I would have spent my time with that.

This was important to him,but not for info seeking...


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> You are still hung up on that..
> 
> I don't judge people because of their faith or lack of faith...I will judge them by their actions.
> 
> ...



I defended FJ the person, not his message.  He has a right to his belief and to be able to discuss counter point type arguments here.  He was respectful, as those of us who know more about Dawkins are aware he could have really brought some deeper issues to the front.  He did not.  He showed restraint and that is respect for his audience.

Apparantly I understand more than you do of his actions.
That's not a positive nor a negative.
What he was REALLY looking for was the fact that Dawkins has repeatedly stated........back fundamentalists into a corner where their true faith is exposed as weak and they will react emotionally.
That was proven to him plainly.  It is unfortunate but has been proven as true, time and time again.

You think I am hung up?  Look at the judgement being passed.  Is that what the word teaches we are to do?
Discernment is not judgement, nor is personal insult.

My friend, his discussion would only influence those of weak or non-existant faith.  Those with a strong faith in their beliefs should have no worry nor feel threatened.
Lashing out at the messenger proved his individual thesis.


----------

