Jump to content

God talked to me... does that make me crazy?


HtownWxBoy

Recommended Posts

...and...

...hmmm... so which is it? him? her? I find it strange that we are so sure in what God looks like, down to his/her gender... Any being (or off-spring of said being) that can create the universe, create man, and knows-all, in my book, cannot possibly be ~6 feet tall, have long hair down to their waist, wear sandals, and walk on water. Any being, if one does exist, is beyond what was written by man, beyond any human form we could possibly understand, beyond any human reasoning, logic, or moral system.

I am weary of anyone who says "God made me do it." For good deeds, or bad deeds.

Bryan, you NEED to stay out of this one. You can't even figure out the REAL reason why certain "genders" weren't being let into a bar. :rolleyes:

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One would think that after thousand years of confusion, god would finally realize that "shoot, I better go down and tell them myself, maybe do some real in-your-face miracles, so they believe me and wouldn't get it wrong". But no, he wants to go through the message through dreams thingy again, so we end up with even more more denominations, hooray.

Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and he himself was raised from the dead after being dead three days. He made himself known to thousands of people after this and people still didn't believe.

He made the deaf hear, the blind see and the lame walk.

I've never heard or met anyone else could do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and he himself was raised from the dead after being dead three days. He made himself known to thousands of people after this and people still didn't believe.

He made the deaf hear, the blind see and the lame walk.

I've never heard or met anyone else could do that.

Your evidence is hearsay. And...

I've never heard or met anyone else could do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One would think that after thousand years of confusion, god would finally realize that "shoot, I better go down and tell them myself, maybe do some real in-your-face miracles, so they believe me and wouldn't get it wrong".

he had a theory too

he said that god takes care of himself

he said that god takes care of himself

and you of you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was the God of the Bible, would he tell you to do something inconsistent with his commandments/teachings?

The bible is full of contradictions.

This is a very good website that lists all of the contradictions in the bible in an annotated form.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

It also does the same thing for the Quaran and Book of Mormon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the rest of world history hearsay? Why or why not?

When George Washington writes a document from the battlefield to one of his generals and that document is preserved, that is not hearsay; it is a primary source, one of many. It can be traced backwards from the possession of one person to the next, can be corroborated by other unrelated historical evidence, and thereby can be reasonably verified as authentic. When an historian utilizes the primary source among others to piece together a complete history of some set of events, their work is a secondary source. If the secondary source cites its evidence then it becomes possible for the veracity of the secondary source to be independently verified by a researcher.

The Bible has lots of problems as a historical document. First and foremost, nobody can prove who wrote the various gospels, and although scholars have dated the writings to within a reasonable range, by the time that they are written, many decades have passed since the authors (whoever they actually were) might have borne witnesses to miracles; they would have been old men. Any lawyer can tell you that peoples' memory for details are bad enough just hours after an event in question has occurred; decades later, memory is utterly pitiful, corroborating witnesses are hard to come by and unreliable, and all too often, such people have become more prone to mental illnesses such as dementia. It is especially difficult to grant it the benefit of the doubt when unprecedented events occur that cannot be duplicated by anybody else. If water is turned to wine in this one case, for instance, the sources are unverifiable, nobody can corroborate the event, nobody can duplicate the event, it hasn't happened by random chance either before or after, and the events have been translated multiple times by independent authors...that frankly doesn't have a lot of credibility as a source. Give me a good reason why I should believe it.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a bit of history is hearsay because we hear it the way the historians say it happened, which is not always 100% accurate. Just look at recent history. Politicians will do and say one thing, and then a few years later, they are telling a different version of what happened. Which version is history?

I know of countless instances where doctors have revived the dead, made the deaf hear, and even made the blind see. That

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a bit of history is hearsay because we hear it the way the historians say it happened, which is not always 100% accurate. Just look at recent history. Politicians will do and say one thing, and then a few years later, they are telling a different version of what happened. Which version is history?

I know of countless instances where doctors have revived the dead, made the deaf hear, and even made the blind see. That's not a miracle; that's science and technology.

Did they do it simply by speaking as Jesus did? Were the dead people raised back to life dead for three days and were they dead for so long like Lazirus that his body actually smelled bad?

Jesus didn't do it with science and technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When George Washington writes a document from the battlefield to one of his generals and that document is preserved, that is not hearsay; it is a primary source, one of many. It can be traced backwards from the possession of one person to the next, can be corroborated by other unrelated historical evidence, and thereby can be reasonably verified as authentic. When an historian utilizes the primary source among others to piece together a complete history of some set of events, their work is a secondary source. If the secondary source cites its evidence then it becomes possible for the veracity of the secondary source to be independently verified by a researcher.

The Bible has lots of problems as a historical document. First and foremost, nobody can prove who wrote the various gospels, and although scholars have dated the writings to within a reasonable range, by the time that they are written, many decades have passed since the authors (whoever they actually were) might have borne witnesses to miracles; they would have been old men. Any lawyer can tell you that peoples' memory for details are bad enough just hours after an event in question has occurred; decades later, memory is utterly pitiful, corroborating witnesses are hard to come by and unreliable, and all too often, such people have become more prone to mental illnesses such as dementia. It is especially difficult to grant it the benefit of the doubt when unprecedented events occur that cannot be duplicated by anybody else. If water is turned to wine in this one case, for instance, the sources are unverifiable, nobody can corroborate the event, nobody can duplicate the event, it hasn't happened by random chance either before or after, and the events have been translated multiple times by independent authors...that frankly doesn't have a lot of credibility as a source. Give me a good reason why I should believe it.

There are many documents from the time of Jesus that were preserved. The Romans loved writing everything down, as did the Greeks, which is why we know so much about both civilizations. We know how many bushels of grain were produced by each farmer each year. We know how much taxes were paid by individual citizens of ancient Gallalee. There's a modern notion that we invented document recording and archives, but that is far from the truth.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are perhaps the most famous ancient documents that survive, but they are far from the only ones. Libraries aren't a new invention -- they have existed since the ancient Egyptians and probably before. To claim, as some people do, that there is no documentation from that era is simply false.

Further, oral teachings from one generation to another are commonly used by historians around the world as reliable first source material. The stories handed down from one American Indian generation to the next, for example. An even better example is the stories and poetry of Indian priests in western India that have been passed along so perfectly for thousands of years that historians have been able to revive a dead language by decoding their sounds. I saw a big PBS series about the history of India and it spend a fair amount of time explaining that the oral traditions have been preserved perfectly from something like 2,000 BC.

Historians accept many oral traditions from many cultures as accurate, even spanning thousands of years. But for some reason people on the internet think that people in the ancient Middle East wouldn't be able to accurately remember stories over a mere 50 or 100 years until they could be written down. Their brain's weren't TV-addled mush like ours. Just because the average American can't remember ten phone numbers doesn't mean an ancient Jew couldn't remember something Jesus did. They didn't have a whole lot else to remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When George Washington writes a document from the battlefield to one of his generals and that document is preserved, that is not hearsay; it is a primary source, one of many. It can be traced backwards from the possession of one person to the next, can be corroborated by other unrelated historical evidence, and thereby can be reasonably verified as authentic. When an historian utilizes the primary source among others to piece together a complete history of some set of events, their work is a secondary source. If the secondary source cites its evidence then it becomes possible for the veracity of the secondary source to be independently verified by a researcher.

The Bible has lots of problems as a historical document. First and foremost, nobody can prove who wrote the various gospels, and although scholars have dated the writings to within a reasonable range, by the time that they are written, many decades have passed since the authors (whoever they actually were) might have borne witnesses to miracles; they would have been old men. Any lawyer can tell you that peoples' memory for details are bad enough just hours after an event in question has occurred; decades later, memory is utterly pitiful, corroborating witnesses are hard to come by and unreliable, and all too often, such people have become more prone to mental illnesses such as dementia. It is especially difficult to grant it the benefit of the doubt when unprecedented events occur that cannot be duplicated by anybody else. If water is turned to wine in this one case, for instance, the sources are unverifiable, nobody can corroborate the event, nobody can duplicate the event, it hasn't happened by random chance either before or after, and the events have been translated multiple times by independent authors...that frankly doesn't have a lot of credibility as a source. Give me a good reason why I should believe it.

I wonder if we put every major historical event under the testing you provide if many of them could stand it?

It seems you're not willing to accept at face value that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels as self procliamed? Is it because there are not other outside sources verifying this? The Bible is one book now, but that does not mean it was one book when written. They were four totally separate letters. And if one is to believe the bible, one has to believe God is all powerful, because it teaches that. You can't look at it from your point of view where all things are simply naturaly. From the biblical point of view, God easily could have caused their mind to remember those things. From a natural point of view with no god, then yes, you're right, they couldn't remember everything they saw. But from a biblical point of view, yes, it's absolutely possible.

I'm not demanding anyone believe this. There's plenty of evidence that the bible is true. The bible and salvation must be accepted by faith (but it's not blind). If one is looking for science, facts, messages in the sky and absolute proof that it's true, they'll never believe it and I don't expect them to. This world revolves around the fact that there is a God.

EDIT: Just to add on, I think I'll agree with I think it's memebag who says it, yes I believe in, "God did it" for some explanations. I believe in an all powerful God who spoke everything we can and can't see into existence. There is nothing he can't do. If God can do that then it's easy for me to simply believe in, "God did it."

Edited by lockmat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historians accept many oral traditions from many cultures as accurate, even spanning thousands of years. But for some reason people on the internet think that people in the ancient Middle East wouldn't be able to accurately remember stories over a mere 50 or 100 years until they could be written down. Their brain's weren't TV-addled mush like ours. Just because the average American can't remember ten phone numbers doesn't mean an ancient Jew couldn't remember something Jesus did. They didn't have a whole lot else to remember.

That's a good point. People back then passed on information orally, not written down. No doubt their memories were 100 times better.

I've also learned that we use such a small portion of our brains today. I wouldn't be surprised if they used much more of theirs back then.

Also, we do not know how the pyramids were made. We could never duplicate them today if we tried to do it their way; but that doesn't mean they weren't built. We have no explanation. Just because there's not an explanation doesn't mean something is not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many documents from the time of Jesus that were preserved. The Romans loved writing everything down, as did the Greeks, which is why we know so much about both civilizations. We know how many bushels of grain were produced by each farmer each year. We know how much taxes were paid by individual citizens of ancient Gallalee. There's a modern notion that we invented document recording and archives, but that is far from the truth.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are perhaps the most famous ancient documents that survive, but they are far from the only ones. Libraries aren't a new invention -- they have existed since the ancient Egyptians and probably before. To claim, as some people do, that there is no documentation from that era is simply false.

Further, oral teachings from one generation to another are commonly used by historians around the world as reliable first source material. The stories handed down from one American Indian generation to the next, for example. An even better example is the stories and poetry of Indian priests in western India that have been passed along so perfectly for thousands of years that historians have been able to revive a dead language by decoding their sounds. I saw a big PBS series about the history of India and it spend a fair amount of time explaining that the oral traditions have been preserved perfectly from something like 2,000 BC.

Historians accept many oral traditions from many cultures as accurate, even spanning thousands of years. But for some reason people on the internet think that people in the ancient Middle East wouldn't be able to accurately remember stories over a mere 50 or 100 years until they could be written down. Their brain's weren't TV-addled mush like ours. Just because the average American can't remember ten phone numbers doesn't mean an ancient Jew couldn't remember something Jesus did. They didn't have a whole lot else to remember.

But, there are very very few documents which would qualify as a verifiable primary source written about the subject matter being discussed in this thread.

The circumstances surrounding the validity and reliability of oral tradition as historical evidence vary greatly, and we aren't talking about Indians or Indians. Right now, you're only speculating. For the record, I am not saying that the events of the Bible are implausible, just that they are profoundly unlikely. If you want to improve the document's credibility, there needs to be a lot of independently corroborating evidence. If there were strong oral traditions in the Middle East, tell me about them--otherwise, why should I believe that there were oral traditions just because you provide me a couple of examples of far-removed cultures that are outlying data points on the spectrum?

Btw, this argument that the memory of the modern American is worse than that of the ancient Jews because we're distracted by television doesn't stack up. We have vastly superior nutrition, health care, and pharmacopoeia, as well as nearly 100% literacy. And if you think that 'simpler times' means that people didn't have a lot of pressing things to think about, like food production, trading, government, and war, you're very wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if we put every major historical event under the testing you provide if many of them could stand it?

Sure, major world events can be corroborated by primary documents. Wars, famines, plague, regime changes, government form, law, economic patterns...there's a lot of documentation out there. The details can get fuzzy from one example to another, but if you're talking about major world events, it isn't difficult to put together a reliable chronology.

The Bible is somewhat different, however, in that there isn't much corroborating evidence and that to the extent that there is, the details remain very fuzzy--and especially because so many of the tenants of the Bible are taken from the literal details. This is part of the reason that we're having this debate over people taking things literally or not, and then how they should be interpreted if not literally. And as has been pointed out, people have arrived at thousands of different answers to questions about the very same document. That, by itself, is an indication that it isn't an especially reliable document to work from.

It seems you're not willing to accept at face value that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels as self procliamed? Is it because there are not other outside sources verifying this? The Bible is one book now, but that does not mean it was one book when written. They were four totally separate letters.

No, I don't accept the traditional authorship as proven. I do not accept at face value that all of the books were written independently, even if some certainly were. And even if I did, the document has been translated multiple times, so there are multiple authors.

And if one is to believe the bible, one has to believe God is all powerful, because it teaches that. You can't look at it from your point of view where all things are simply naturaly. From the biblical point of view, God easily could have caused their mind to remember those things. From a natural point of view with no god, then yes, you're right, they couldn't remember everything they saw. But from a biblical point of view, yes, it's absolutely possible.

Sure, that's the biblical view. But my reasons to accept the biblical view (not as possible, but as likely) are scant. Give me some.

I'm not demanding anyone believe this. There's plenty of evidence that the bible is true. The bible and salvation must be accepted by faith (but it's not blind). If one is looking for science, facts, messages in the sky and absolute proof that it's true, they'll never believe it and I don't expect them to. This world revolves around the fact that there is a God.

Show me the evidence. Faith is not evidence. Faith is acceptance without evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, we do not know how the pyramids were made. We could never duplicate them today if we tried to do it their way; but that doesn't mean they weren't built. We have no explanation. Just because there's not an explanation doesn't mean something is not true.

I can believe in pyramids because they are there. I can observe them. Others can observe them. We can share notes on our observations and arrive at similar conclusions.

I've seen a fairly consistent explanation as to how they were constructed. We could do it today...if we wanted to...but nobody wants to.

Just because there's not an explanation doesn't mean something is not true.

Evaluate these statements: I, TheNiche, am a god. You, Lockmat, are also a god. The banana I'm eating is a god. I'm not going to provide you with any meaningful evidence to this effect...although I could write a book about it if I really wanted to. I am going to let you prove me wrong. And if you cannot prove me wrong, then I am going to hold it over your head as something that is plausible, and therefore as an idea worthy of your faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When George Washington writes a document from the battlefield to one of his generals and that document is preserved, that is not hearsay; it is a primary source, one of many. It can be traced backwards from the possession of one person to the next, can be corroborated by other unrelated historical evidence, and thereby can be reasonably verified as authentic.
How about the other document the Washington wrote telling how badly he screwed up and how he made a number of bad decisions? As far as I know, there wasn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't accept the traditional authorship as proven. I do not accept at face value that all of the books were written independently, even if some certainly were. And even if I did, the document has been translated multiple times, so there are multiple authors.

I don't know, but how many original documents do we have of other major world events?

Show me the evidence. Faith is not evidence. Faith is acceptance without evidence.

The fact that anything exists shows there is a god. Nothing else can explain existence itself.

Evaluate these statements: I, TheNiche, am a god. You, Lockmat, are also a god. The banana I'm eating is a god. I'm not going to provide you with any meaningful evidence to this effect...although I could write a book about it if I really wanted to. I am going to let you prove me wrong. And if you cannot prove me wrong, then I am going to hold it over your head as something that is plausible, and therefore as an idea worthy of your faith.

I didn't mean to say that anything and everything can and should be accepted without evidence. But yes, I will admit that some things I must believe simply by faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know Jesus actually raised Lazarus from the dead? Just because the Bible says so? Where else is the story documented? Where is the corroborating evidence? If you want to state that as a matter of Faith, that's one thing. But you can't say for certain that it is historically accurate.

There is no film footage or photographs taken, no diaries found. You're right. There is enough evidence for me to believe the rest of the bible is true so I also believe that was true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's plenty of evidence that the bible is true. The bible and salvation must be accepted by faith (but it's not blind).

What is your definition of blind faith?

This world revolves around the fact that there is a God.

Am I taking this out of some other context, or are you serious? :o

I've also learned that we use such a small portion of our brains today. I wouldn't be surprised if they used much more of theirs back then.

Seriously? I'd be interested in more information about that..

Also, we do not know how the pyramids were made. We could never duplicate them today if we tried to do it their way; but that doesn't mean they weren't built. We have no explanation. Just because there's not an explanation doesn't mean something is not true.

Disagree - well, what Niche said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your definition of blind faith?

Believing something without any evidence at all.

Am I taking this out of some other context, or are you serious? :o

The reason I think you're shocked is because I'm guessing your worldview is from an evolutionist perspective. I'm looking at it from the perspective that an all powerful holy god exists.

Psalm 19:1 says... The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Seriously? I'd be interested in more information about that..

I was taught it in college so I guess I couldn't give you hard evidence unless I researched it myself again.

Well...just did a little research :) Snopes and other places say we do indeed use our entire brain. Regardless, the main point was that they were an oral society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense intended to lockmat and others. I usually stay away from this topic with my many Christian friends, but, hey, it's a forum and the subject is under discussion, so here goes.

I have lots of problems with the way the Church has behaved throughout history. Examples are many: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the wars between Catholics and Protestants, the centuries-old persecution of Jews, and more modern controversies such as gender roles and sexual identity.

Leaving all that aside, though, my "theological" objections are fivefold:

God as depicted in the Old Testament is as jealous, vindictive, and cruel as any earthly tyrant.

God as depicted in the Old Testament frequently and openly intervenes in people's lives and in historical events. Where is He now? Causing schizophrenia in unfortunate "prophets?"

Millions of people on this planet have lived and died without ever hearing of or knowing anything about Christianity. Are they automatically condemned just because of geographical or historical accident? Seems like if God cares and He is all-powerful, there should be a better way to handle this massive injustice.

God required the murder of an innocent man (Jesus) as "atonement" for our supposed "sins."

Sorry, but I feel like I have a pretty good sense of right and wrong. I have not committed any "crime" for which I deserve some kind of eternal torment. It was necessary for some other poor individual to DIE to "save" me from that, then the God which requires that, and sends some to an eternal torment, is no better than the most corrupt earthly judge, and is certainly not worthy of worship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God as depicted in the Old Testament is as jealous, vindictive, and cruel as any earthly tyrant.

In no way am I trying to be condesending in these discussion.

What is your understanding of why he is angry and jealous?

God as depicted in the Old Testament frequently and openly intervenes in people's lives and in historical events. Where is He now? Causing schizophrenia in unfortunate "prophets?"

One, from a biblical standpoint, he has intervened by sending his son and giving us his written word. Two, this kind of goes back to what I mentioned to Niche earlier. The bible is not an exhaustive recording of what happened in the bible. It's select. Because it's recorded that he intervened does not mean he always did, and that we have not experienced or seen any intervening to the same degree does not mean it's not happening today.

Millions of people on this planet have lived and died without ever hearing of or knowing anything about Christianity. Are they automatically condemned just because of geographical or historical accident? Seems like if God cares and He is all-powerful, there should be a better way to handle this massive injustice.

Is God obligated to do such a thing? Yes, I cringe when the thoughts of a real hell and it's description are in my head. It is a horrible place. The thing is, he is not obligated to do anything, yet he chose to give us a way to repent and be reconciled and saved.

God required the murder of an innocent man (Jesus) as "atonement" for our supposed "sins."

As I'm sure you've read, as a symbol to the Israelites, he commanded them to make animal and agricultural sacrafices for their sins. Of course, these sacrafices did not pay for, or atone, for their sins. It was a symbol so they could see the seriousness of sin and the price it took for reconciliation, death/a sacrafice. But the only one that could really pay the price was someone who had no sin, Jesus.

The first thing that happened after adam and eve sinned was death, when God made a provision for them to make clothes. Had they not sinned, a sacrafice would not have been needed.

Sorry, but I feel like I have a pretty good sense of right and wrong. I have not committed any "crime" for which I deserve some kind of eternal torment. It was necessary for some other poor individual to DIE to "save" me from that, then the God which requires that, and sends some to an eternal torment, is no better than the most corrupt earthly judge, and is certainly not worthy of worship.

Sin is not just murdering, stealing, fornication etc; the "big" bad things people do. It's disobeying God. Sin entered the world not through stealing, murder or some other horrible crime, it came from disobeying god and pride, by eating of a fruit tree they weren't supposed to. That in itself began the death process and separation from God.

For all this talk of his wrath, sin etc...the best part is he has given everyone a way to turn from their sins; a way to be reconciled. It's not hopeless.

Edited by lockmat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lockmat, thank you for your reasonable tone and careful explanation. We're not likely to convince each other and I am remembering why I don't like to argue with religious people. Eventually something really unfortunate will get said. It would probably be by me. So I am going to follow Native Son's wiser example and step back out of this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is God obligated to do such a thing? Yes, I cringe when the thoughts of a real hell and it's description are in my head. It is a horrible place. The thing is, he is not obligated to do anything, yet he chose to give us a way to repent and be reconciled and saved.

One thing I like about Judaism is that us Jews don't believe in an actual physical "hell" where people are tortured for all eternity, and Jews don't think that non-Jews go to hell automatically for being born into a different culture. Also Jews often don't seem to have a problem questioning the "word of God", or what is written.

I was in Israel last summer and I was told a story about how Jewish law forbids Jews who have committed suicide from being buried in a Jewish cemetery (I'm not sure where it's written but I guess it is), but then apparently this famous Jewish dude's family committed suicide after surviving the holocaust and they decided it was okay to burry them there even though the torah forbids it. Most Jews basically don't take everything in the torah literally and they can always make exceptions in certain circumstances when it makes sense to do so. Anyways, I wish all religions were that open and pragmatic. That being said I consider myself agnostic, and there are some pretty fundamentalist crazy Jews out there too.

Edited by Jax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually stay away from this topic with my many Christian friends, but, hey, it's a forum and the subject is under discussion, so here goes.
I have never tried to sway anyone from their beliefs, or to adopt, or accept my own. I can
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never tried to sway anyone from their beliefs, or to adopt, or accept my own. I can't say the same for many Christians (and other religions) today, and throughout history. However, if someone, especially in a forum, puts their beliefs on the line and tries to declare those beliefs as indisputable fact, I will jump in with both feet and contradict them with no qualms about it.

Obviously you are correct, Lockmat, about there being no film footage or photographs. However, there are other ways to corroborate a story. Take for instance the Slaughter of the Innocents. That would have been an unconscionable act, had it actually occurred, There would have been enough witnesses around for the story to have made it to all parts of the known world, but it didn't happen. The only "proof" is what is written in the Bible.

Hell, even some of the Roman soldiers would have been so offended that they would have spoken up, and taken the story back to Rome. But that didn't happen either. So, there is no corroborating evidence that the event ever occurred.

Go back to the OT and the story of Moses. Egypt had people from all over running around the area. Doesn't it seem logical someone would made back to their home country with stories about snake sticks and frog rain? You just can't keep things like that quiet.

And there is no corroborating proof that the Israelites were slaves at that time, either. In fact, evidence suggests that they were actually hired by the Egyptians as mercenaries because they were such fierce fighters. They had a mass exodus from Egypt because they suddenly found themselves out of work when Egypt became able to protect itself. I don't know if that is true or not, but it's worth investigating.

A major reason Christians try to spread their belief is one, they're commanded to. But more importantly, they want unbelievers to have the same salvation they have. It would be hateful to withhold information that could save them eternally. If I was unaware of such hope, I'd want someone to tell me the same thing.

I have a question. When Jesus performed all these miracles, like feeding 5,000+, healing all these people etc, he did not do it secretly or to just a few. There were always people around him. He did it for at least a few years. If many letters were written about him and the message spread like crazy, how come there aren't any writings claiming he did NOT do those things? He did them among the Roman govt as well. I would think even the people who denied and hated him might have written some of this down in order to deter others from believing in him. Is that plausible? Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question. When Jesus performed all these miracles, like feeding 5,000+, healing all these people etc, he did not do it secretly or to just a few. There were always people around him. He did it for at least a few years. If many letters were written about him and the message spread like crazy...

First, the letters about Jesus were written after he died, and often by people who never met or saw him.

... how come there aren't any writings claiming he did NOT do those things?

Because people don't often write letters about what someone doesn't do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the letters about Jesus were written after he died, and often by people who never met or saw him.

One of the requirements to be a disciple/apostle was that you had to have seen Jesus. The disciples were with him when he did these things as they often asked him to explain parables and they were even the ones gathering the extra baskets after the feeding.

Don't people today often write about those they've never met or seen?

If God were alive today, he'd be an atheist.

-Kurt Vonnegut.

???

Because people don't often write letters about what someone doesn't do?

I would think there'd be someone to dispute such claims that were being spread so far and wide so quickly?

Someone to say, "this is being said, it's not true." Or maybe not, just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the requirements to be a disciple/apostle was that you had to have seen Jesus. The disciples were with him when he did these things as they often asked him to explain parables and they were even the ones gathering the extra baskets after the feeding.

But we have no letters from people who saw Jesus.

Don't people today often write about those they've never met or seen?

Sure.

I would think there'd be someone to dispute such claims that were being spread so far and wide so quickly?

The claims weren't spread until some time after Jesus was dead.

Edited by memebag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A major reason Christians try to spread their belief is one, they're commanded to. But more importantly, they want unbelievers to have the same salvation they have. It would be hateful to withhold information that could save them eternally. If I was unaware of such hope, I'd want someone to tell me the same thing.
So, are you saying that Christians stick their noses into everybody else
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, no, God didn't really talk to me, at least not today. But I was watching the movie Evan Almighty today while I was home... I have seen it before and it's a really cute movie. In it Steve Carell plays Evan who is told by God, played by Morgan Freeman, that he needs to build an arc because a flood is coming. So anyways, after some convincing he begins building the arc and everyone in town calls him crazy even though he tells them that God told him to do this.

We live in a Nation where many people consider themselves "Christians" and they believe in God and they pray to God and believe all that stuff... yadda, yadda, yadda. If I were to say tomorrow that God spoke to me and he wants me to build a big boat and I start building it... a lot of people, many of them "Christians", would probably think I should be locked up in an institution. Why is that? What if I went on TV tomorrow and claimed that God came to me in my dream and wanted me to deliver the message that some people being born gay is normal and part of his divine plan and that gays should be allowed to get married... would gay marriage have to automatically be made legal... b/c God said so? How would people know for sure whether or not God did talk to me... why would most automatically think it's not true even though many believe in God and believe you can pray to God and that God hears your prayers and all that stuff...?

Long night at work... I have some downtime... just something I was thinking about. ^_^

Htownwxboy, so now that we've gone off onto such a tangent, what are your thoughts? Not that I expect you've read it all, but I'm sure you've got information from all different sides and might think something a little differently than when you first posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, are you saying that Christians stick their noses into everybody else's business, even if that intrusion is unwanted and highly irritating, that that happens because they are commanded to do so? By who? Whom?

The last couple verses of Matthew are commandments from Jesus to do so. At the same time, there are examples where apostles decided to stop preaching because the people would not believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't look at it from your point of view where all things are simply naturaly. From the biblical point of view, God easily could have caused their mind to remember those things. From a natural point of view with no god, then yes, you're right, they couldn't remember everything they saw. But from a biblical point of view, yes, it's absolutely possible.

It's called a "God of the Gaps" rebuttal. Don't understand something? Need to make a square peg fit a round hole? Fill in the gaps with the deity of your choice.

Over the years, as science progresses our understanding of the world/universe in which we live, the gaps where god can hide have become narrower and narrower. And thus, Christians need to bend and twist their faith to match these new understandings. This is the major impetus for the Christian Apologetics movement; to reconcile biblical teachings with science.

I'm not demanding anyone believe this. There's plenty of evidence that the bible is true. The bible and salvation must be accepted by faith (but it's not blind). If one is looking for science, facts, messages in the sky and absolute proof that it's true, they'll never believe it and I don't expect them to. This world revolves around the fact that there is a God.

No, there is no evidence the bible is true. There is evidence that some of the events which are written in the bible actually occurred, but there is no evidence (outside of faith, which is not evidence) that the bible itself is a book of truths. In fact, it's fairly simple to show that the bible is factually incorrect in many, many areas, starting with the book of Genesis.

And no, the world doesn't revolve around the fact that god (a god, any god, not just your god) exists. Your world view/perception/reality revolves around your belief that there is a god, but god is far from a fact.

But I do respect your right to believe. You're well spoken and knowledgeable about your faith, which I've found to be rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no, the world doesn't revolve around the fact that god (a god, any god, not just your god) exists. Your world view/perception/reality revolves around your belief that there is a god, but god is far from a fact.

Does the world then reveal that evolution is true in your opinion?

Did the order, cooperation and consistency that the world and galaxy has stem from randmoness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the world then reveal that evolution is true in your opinion?

It isn't just opinion. It can be tested.

Did the order, cooperation and consistency that the world and galaxy has stem from randmoness?

Maybe. The universe seems to obey laws, so it isn't pure randomness. Why those laws exist, where they came from and all that is still the subject of investigation. It could be pure random chance that the universe is the way it is, or it could be something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the world then reveal that evolution is true in your opinion?

The evolution of what?

Plants? Reptiles? Fish? Birds? Mammals? Humans? Bacteria?

Micro or macro?

Human inquiry, education, experimentation, and application have provided a wealth of knowledge regarding this subject. Assuming one comprehends the essential facts of evolution, the evidence at hand is all but undeniable in it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A major reason Christians try to spread their belief is one, they're commanded to. But more importantly, they want unbelievers to have the same salvation they have. It would be hateful to withhold information that could save them eternally. If I was unaware of such hope, I'd want someone to tell me the same thing.

I always thought, that according to Christians, you can only get to heaven if you accept Jesus as your savior. What happens to someone, either a baby or a person living in a jungle somewhere completely cut off from the world, that has no idea about Jesus. I find it hard to believe that God would put them on earth and them banish them to hell if they were to die before learning about Jesus. I thought the bible says that in instances such as these, the baby or person living in the jungle (these are just examples) gets a pass and get into Heaven. If you don't know about Jesus, you can't accept him or not accept him.

In that case, if Christians stop spreading their beliefs to the point where Christians who know about Jesus eventually die off, won't that mean that everyone will then get into Heaven since they have no way of learning about Jesus? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...