those london floods? for Christians only

[fuddam]

My friend has no more evidence for the rocket he saw than any religious person has for the god they believe in.

um.........not really. I've said it many times, it's a relationship, ie on-going. Not a simple one-off "I've seen the light"

the example you gave would be akin to meeting someone on a blind date, for 10 seconds, and then spending the rest of his/her life convinced that that was The One. No further conversation / communication etc.

Religion is simply a way for the mind to deal with the big questions without feeling overwhelmed, insignificant and worthless and as a consequence scared.

granted, it can seem like that. And I would agree with you whole-heartedly, in reference to other religions.

you expect me to say that, of course - why? Because I am convinced that Christianity is The One.

But hear me out: Christianity is the only faith that
1) espouses a living, breathing relationship with the creator / creators

2) is directed from God to his creation, not the other way around - not about people blindly looking for some sort of meaning. The bible is about God pursuing his Creation.

3) is absolutely a story of love between creator & creation (no matter how much you like to blame God for man's failings)

4) releases humankind from their failings, betrayals, sins FOR FREE - no work required.

5) values all humankind equally, and places specific value in one's distinct being / personality / soul.

that's off the top of my head.

I have many friends from china / taiwan / HK / malaysia, most of whom follow the traditions given them by their parents. There isn't any questioning of the belief, they spend their religious lives trying to appease angry gods, who never answer them personally, etc etc etc, and yet are steadfast in their belief.

I have no criticism of them. At all.

but I have real problems with their beliefs, when I compare - which I must, just as I compare my beliefs to (my assumption of) yours.

no sarcasm: I respect your search for truth, as I do many of the atheists here, insofar as you don't buy into something that feels false. Onward.

but no atheist here can deny or invalidate my experience, nor that of any of the Christians I know. Why? Because you have not been there.

[Stoo]

This thread is both tirelessly amusing and sadly ridiculous all at the same time

I had conversation with a friend of mine not so long back, a young-ish (18 at the time) girl from Malaysia.

She seemed genuinely shocked that "God" had no place in my life - she really wondered how I could live day to day without "his" inspiration, guidance and love..

Which I find to be a very sad state of affairs to be honest, a young girl like that not knowing how to live without "his" inspiration?

Is is really that hard to be inspired by friends, strangers, events and nature? Is it that hard to believe that someone could have their own pretty strong moral compass, based on nothing more than experience without divine intervention on a regular basis?

[fuddam]

This thread is both tirelessly amusing and sadly ridiculous all at the same time

I had conversation with a friend of mine not so long back, a young-ish (18 at the time) girl from Malaysia.

She seemed genuinely shocked that "God" had no place in my life - she really wondered how I could live day to day without "his" inspiration, guidance and love..

Which I find to be a very sad state of affairs to be honest, a young girl like that not knowing how to live without "his" inspiration?

my guess is she was talking about the God-shaped hole in everyone - once it's filled, it's pretty hard to imagine life with it being empty again

of course you can get on with your life, with your friends, own moral compass etc, but there's no comparison for someone who has experienced both sides.

[yamangman]

lol fuddam, you and you're group of christians are in the extreme minority of the population of this planet. How do you correlate the differences between you and most other 'Christians' and persons alive. Most Christians I know have never heard or witnessed anything divine, yet you can see it everywhere. Is it a question of a greater delusional mind (as I and it seems most very much suspect) or is it the influence of a holy omnipotent deity?

[TeePee]

What evidence?

Show me evidence and my opinion will change!

Thats the great thing about science!

[Stoo]

my guess is she was talking about the God-shaped hole in everyone - once it's filled, it's pretty hard to imagine life with it being empty again

of course you can get on with your life, with your friends, own moral compass etc, but there's no comparison for someone who has experienced both sides.

Right, so because I'm not a Christian and I don't communicate with "God" on a daily basis, my life is immediately inferior and "empty" compared to yours?

Okay..

Can you demonstrate how your life is so much better than mine, or is it simply a "feeling" ?

[fuddam]

Right, so because I'm not a Christian and I don't communicate with "God" on a daily basis, my life is immediately inferior and "empty" compared to yours?

Okay..

Can you demonstrate how your life is so much better than mine, or is it simply a "feeling" ?

no need to be so defensive. Was not attacking or belittling you.

try look at things from my POV: God creates us, but also creates a God-shaped hole within us. Only He can fill this hole, only he can fill the nagging feeling that there is something more to life than what is obvious to the eye.

People look to fill this hole with all sorts of means: hedonism, drugs & various other substances, their work, etc. None of it suffices.

So, if one allows God to fill this hole, there is a feeling of completeness that nothing else matches. How could it?

so, no matter how successful one might be, either materially or socially, no matter how rewarding one's day-to-day life might be, there is still going to be that nagging empty bit. You, for eg, might have an amazing career saving lives, which must be incredibly rewarding, but in the end, that will not suffice.

there is no way a Christian should feel superior to a non-Christian - after all, it is not due to their own actions that God has fulfilled them; rather, I would say, a Christian should feel incredibly grateful, even privileged, but only with a deep sense of humility.

[iranu]

lol fuddam, you and you're group of christians are in the extreme minority of the population of this planet.

Infact I'd go much further than this and say that Christians are in the extreme minority within the Universe.

I find it fundamentally ridiculous that Christians believe such things as "god created man in his own image" etc when you consider that we, on this planet, orbiting a fairly ordinary star on the outside of an ordinary galaxy amongst billions upon billions of galaxies are most likely not the only intelligent beings about. And that goes for any other religion too.

Now I realise that this could be argued with regard to athiesm too but I'm sure that any other intelligent life would consider such things as "a god-shaped hole" and a "two way relationship with the creator" as being pretty far fetched aswell. I would be extremely impressed if aliens had a copy of their own Bible that translated and correlated directly with the one that Christians consider the word of god.

Now that would be evidence! But once again we have the same old case of asking for evidence but not getting it from someone who says they have the evidence. Atleast science has method, is repeatable and can be devoloped and improved on.

TBH I don't see why this god chappy doesn't settle it once and for all and simply appear and get it over and done with. It would save alot of pointless internet threads even though it's fun to debate.

I also find it hilarious that fuddam considers his religion to be the correct one yet can he explain what chance people have in strict Muslim countries (or perhaps tribes in the middle of the Amazon) have of discovering the "correct" religion. I think it's terrible that these people don't have the chance.

Surely a large proportion of people in these lands know very little of your Christianity so how can they be given the chance you have had or is that simply a priviledge or god's will? Should you go forth and spread the good word in say Saudi Arabia? What about all those people that were alive before the spread of Christianity poor beggers never had a chance to be enlightened did they? /sarcasm off but you see my point.

BTW - I'm having a rather good two way relationship with Kylie Minogue at the moment. Infact you could say that I had a Kylie shaped hole in me and that I now can't ever imagine what life would be like without that relationship (or her pert bottom). Sorry I haven't got a photo or anything else to prove it but hey you should also try to find Kylie. I got a friend who is having a relationship with Angelina Jolie but she's a bit angry and never phones him. I have problems with her tatoos. Sounds a bit weird doesn't it?

[fuddam]

What evidence?

Show me evidence and my opinion will change!

Thats the great thing about science!

Teepee, we have been at differences for some time now, and as you said, there are many threads where those differences have been expressed. Time & time again I've given you examples of lives changed, of occurences that defy any atheistic explanation, of experiences that go beyond the pale, but all you do is retreat into the "we can't explain it now but one day we will" camp. Your faith in an atheistic explanation of the universe is awesome, but that doesn't make it correct.

It really doesn't matter what I say. If I could present a billion people who all told you that they heard God speak to them in plain English, that they had seen God in plain view, you would assert that they are all simply delusional, because to say otherwise would shake your foundations.

how do we find someone guilty of a crime? by witnesses. People are executed on the basis of the testimony of one or two individuals.

so, if I present millions of witnesses who testify to an experience of God, in whatever shape or form, but you dismiss them because you refuse to recognise their logic, what else is there to be said?

When you really want to explore all avenues, go and read MERE CHRISTIANITY by CS Lewis.

in the very first feedback, one reader writes: I found the opening chapters particularly helpful in presenting a well-argued case for the rational foundations of Christianity, or at least belief in the existence of God. It offers a challenge to Christians to question the intellectual grounds for their faith, and the reassurance that sufficient answers can be found. Non-Christians looking to investigate the rational basis of Christianity, or of religion in general, will also find this an accessible and thought-provoking read. (my emphasis)

[fuddam]

I find it fundamentally ridiculous that Christians believe such things as "god created man in his own image" etc when you consider that we, on this planet, orbiting a fairly ordinary star on the outside of an ordinary galaxy amongst billions upon billions of galaxies are most likely not the only intelligent beings about.

that's only ridiculous until you contemplate a God able to create the universe in the first place. 2nd, that this God is motivated by love.

whether there exist other intelligent life forms is immaterial. why? Because whether they exist or not has no bearing on the case for or against His existence. If He has created us, then equally He will have created them, and with the same motivation: to love them and be loved by them. And as such, He will have revealed Himself to them, in whatever way appropriate - as He has done for us.

also, the physical image is not as important as the spiritual image.

Now I realise that this could be argued with regard to athiesm too but I'm sure that any other intelligent life would consider such things as "a god-shaped hole" and a "two way relationship with the creator" as being pretty far fetched aswell. I would be extremely impressed if aliens had a copy of their own Bible that translated and correlated directly with the one that Christians consider the word of god.

why not? the same God creates them, the same God will communicate with them, and redeem them from their sins. The details are not important - the message & meaning are.

TBH I don't see why this god chappy doesn't settle it once and for all and simply appear and get it over and done with. It would save alot of pointless internet threads even though it's fun to debate.

agreed. But I leave that up to Him, since anything otherwise is just speculation. I do speculate, of course, but recognise it as such.

I also find it hilarious that fuddam considers his religion to be the correct one yet can he explain what chance people have in strict Muslim countries (or perhaps tribes in the middle of the Amazon) have of discovering the "correct" religion. I think it's terrible that these people don't have the chance.

how can you say that? I dare not.

as before in this thread, consider the following: God creates His creation, because He loves us. Do you really think He would deny His love to a massive proportion of the population? That is not loving - it is contradictory.

Also, as before, He is a God of perfect justice. Where would the justice be if He punished people who had no hope of learning about Him, either for historical or geographical reasons?

Your argument has not recognised my earlier statements, that God is IN PURSUIT of His creation. He is not quintessentially a god of anger, of punishment - He sent His own son to DIE for us, such is His love.

So, it follows, that He will do His utmost to reveal himself to each and every human, and judge that person accordingly. I trust Him, and as such, trust Him more than anyone who has ever lived on the face of the planet. I trust Him, based on His actions, to go to the ends of the earth to save EVERYONE.

But many don't want Him. Even if He revealed himself in glowing neon colours emblazoned across the sky, many people would not accept Him.

It's all down to a choice between putting self at the centre of one's existence, or Him. As people are intrinsically selfish, it's a difficult choice.





for the record, I know of many muslims & hindu's who have experienced Him in something akin to the bright neon. But to expand on that will simply invite derision, so nuff said.

[TeePee]

It's not faith, because my opinion can be changed, easily, by evidence.

If you presented a billion people I'd listen. I'd consider mass delusions for sure, but for a billion people to be affected I'd say it was pretty unlikely.

I'd consider the source. If the claims these people made were the product of indoctrination as children, I'd question if they were really objective witnesses, much the same as a court would question a wife testifying for or against her husband.

Then I'd look to see if their claims were possible. If there was evidence supporting or denying their claims, and then I'd make an objective decision based on the balance of the evidence and witness testimony.

In the case of christianity, christians can not be counted as objective witnesses due to their childhood indoctrination. It's the very nature of religion. Would you consider muslims equally valid witnesses? The two sides contradict each other. Witnesses just aren't good enough when there are a billion on each side saying different things.

What about the evidence? As we have seen, physical evidence disproves biblical creationism. Historical evidence, although inconclusive, strongly suggests there was no historical Jesus. There is no reason for the existence of the supernatural.

Do you have anything else?

[theuncharmed]

Faith is a really strange thing. Faith in ignorance is dangerous and although the stats suggest a billion people are Christian, I doubt that figure is half true (of course you can then get into what classifies Christianity etc).

But why should you look to others to find the answers. Why should you wait? If you want to know something, get out there and ask.

I want to know if God is right, that's why I read the bible, that's why I talk to other religious people of varying faiths and ask them. I have my doubts, I look at the stars and wonder - but then I read up on the subject and the answers become apparent.

I love debate, but blind ignorant debate, isn't going to give you any answers.

[fuddam]

Historical evidence, although inconclusive, strongly suggests there was no historical Jesus.

that's the one area where we can really get stuck in, because we can use scientific method to examine all the historical artefacts etc.

Now you're getting on very thin ground. very thin.

I spent a week in the British Museum & British Library recently, with some people who know their stuff - christian indy jones's, if you will, filming a documentary.

hmmmm interesting stuff, in a famously secular institution (the museum). There is too much info to put it all down here for your consumption, but a few examples will suffice.

G E WRIGHT: We shall prob never prove that Abram really existed...but what we can prove is that his life & times are reflected in the stories about him, fit perfectly within the early second millenium but imperfectly within any later period.

Sir Frederic Kenyon: The evidence of archeology has been to re-establish the authority of the Old Testament and likewsie to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background setting.

William F. Albright: The excessive skepticism shown towards the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th & 91th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.

Millar Burrows: On the whole, archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record.

Joseph Free: confirms that while thumbing through the book of Genesis, he mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters are either illuminated or confirmed by some archeological discovery, and that this would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both OT & NT.

Nelson Glueck (Jewish reformed scholar & archeologist): to date, no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood Biblical statement.

and for the NT? and the existence of Jesus (purely as a historical figure):

- 5686 known Greek manuscripts of the NT
- 10,000 Latin Vulgates
- 9,284 other early versions translated into 13 languages
ie approx 25,000 manuscripts

however, only 230 manuscripts of the NT predate the 6th century (McDowell 1972:39-49, 1999:38)

BUT, and this is a big but, when we compare the dates of secular & philosophical writings and ascertain the earliest dates of the earliest copies of those writings, we find there are much larger gaps than those of the NT manuscripts (including Herodotus, Thucdides, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Suetonius, Tacitus)

The earliest copy of any secular manuscript does not appear until 850AD, a good 750 years after the original was composed. Furthermore, all the other secular copies come after the 9th century. eg Pliny was writing between 61-113AD, yet the earliest extent manuscript is dated to 850AD. Does anyone doubt Pliny's or any other of the secular writers' accuracy & credibility? Not at all. So why the double standard?

There are over 200 copies of the NT in existence even before the first secular extant copy is produced! If 9th century documents can be rendered credible by historians, why not the NT 1st C documents?

Even more importantly, there is evidence more important than the manuscripts, hostile witnesses, translations & lectionaries (details available but only if you want it) - namely the letters of the early church fathers. In their letters, they quoted from all 27 books of the NT. In all, 86,489 quotes have been found by Leo Jaganay, now stored in the British Library.

before the 4th C, we have 32,000 quotes from the NT, ie prior to the council of Nicea. Add on the work of Eusebius, brings the number to 36,289. If we compile these quotations, from between the 2nd & 4th C, in chronological order, we can contruct the entire NT except for 11 verses (Giesler 1999:532)

Giesler states: "the quotations are so numerous & widespread that if no manuscripts of the NT were extant, the NT could be reproduced from the writings of the early Father's alone".

since we can trace exact quotations of the biblical texts in the early church fathers' quotations from as early as 90AD to 160AD (Bruce, 1996:18), those who consider the Bible to have been corrupted will have to find documentation for this corruption from before these early dates. This is a strong argument against corruption, because it places Biblical text in an extra biblical source, co-existent with the eye-witnesses of those events.

no other piece of literature, secular or religious, can make this claim.

So, the NT as purely a historical text, a record of events that took place, is more credible than any other piece of literature available. In fact, from internal evidence alone (using criteria applied to any historical document), there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NT after about 80AD (Albright RDBL, 136) - ie they were written while the protagonists were still around, able to dispute the record.

So Jesus did not exist?

[TeePee]

No.

You can't use archeology to prove the bible. You can say it's accurate about some events but simply saying a place exists doesn't validate the bible as anything other than a story with fictitious character and real places.

You want to try to prove the bible is right by saying the bible is more credible than every other piece of literature available. That's pretty arogant, and totally illogical when the bible was written with only one intention. Your long discourse of the origins of the bible is irrelevant. You can't use your holy book to prove your holy book, especially when it is filled with so many contradictions.

The secular manuscripts you mention simply don't support the existence of Jesus.

[G4Z]

Well I say superman exists, I have seen the evidence that is just as credible as the bible, witness Superman the movie, as well as Superman II through V and the numerous comic books, the evidence is right there in the film archive and documents!!!!

[yamangman]

Just read back through his posts. Where he has some tangible (however slight, improbable or wooly) evidence to prove somthing he stretches it to breaking point (although of course it seems that the existence of Jesus is rather besides the point). And as I have said, fairly-tale answers are provided for the unanswerable.

The debate is pointless, when someone needs no rhyme or reason for proof. I'm afraid that his lengthy discourse may embolden other 'christians' in their delusion, which as far as i'm concerned can only be a bad thing.

I'm not one for the 'all war is started by religion' stuff, but you would be hard pressed to find other topics that fly so heavily in the face of each other, that would cause such division, and where frequently other peoples are despised, eschewn and hated in their holy texts, or by orators of there particular 'side'.

From a scientific stand point such behavior asserts itself throughout society. You have to belong to a part of a group, otherwise you are outcast, however (insane) whatever (reason) that group may be. It may well be behaviour that the primative part of our minds refuses to let go of, however i'm not nearly enough of a scientist in that field to argue such a point.

On a more personal note, you're arrogance is astounding, for someone who can claim near the beginning of this thread the 'superior attitudes of atheists', for all of your 'lol's' and 'time will tells'.

Time will tell when you don't 'meet your maker' fuddam. You'll kick yourself then..... oh - no you won't.