# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Jefferson quote on Christianity

## Ronin Truth

> *.."Nothing can be more exactly and seriously true than what is there [the very words only of Jesus] stated; that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ." ~ Thomas Jefferson*


Must be a Roman Empire reference.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Marked read by whom?  1 view, 1 reply (this one).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Normally there's some wisdom in TJ's quotes about religion, but this one is quite ignorant.  Apparently his knowledge of Christianity is limited to some aspects of the Roman Empire from Constantine forward and most of Protestantism.  I am disappoint.  IMO, he understood Calvin better.

----------


## erowe1

> Must be a Roman Empire reference.


Who knows? TJ obviously missed the whole point of Jesus's incarnation. It wasn't to reform Jewish religion and preach the purest system of morals ever. It was to die for the sins of men and rise again.

----------


## William Tell

> Who knows? TJ obviously missed the whole point of Jesus's incarnation. It wasn't to reform Jewish religion and preach the purest system of morals ever. It was to die for the sins of men and rise again.


As I understand it, he cut the important parts out of his Bible.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I'm with Tom.

----------


## HVACTech

> I'm with Tom.


I agree. "red" words only. 

King James had an agenda. imho.
it would seem to me, that today, we have much better access to information than King James did.
we need a new "version" (with footnotes)(all translations need footnotes)

----------


## erowe1

> I agree. "red" words only. 
> 
> King James had an agenda. imho.
> it would seem to me, that today, we have much better access to information than King James did.
> we need a new "version" (with footnotes)(all translations need footnotes)


There is no shortage of new versions. Including lots with footnotes.

----------


## fisharmor

> we need a new "version"





> There is no shortage of new versions.


Indeed, King James' crew was working 16 centuries after the fact.

If you're concerned about the translation, there actually is no shortage of people willing to teach you Greek and Hebrew.  If you're really unwilling to rely on other people's translations, there really is no other way.

Of course you could always find a group of people who make a habit of studying Greek and Hebrew and rely on their opinion.  Some of them are quite serious about it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There is no shortage of new versions. Including lots with footnotes.


This^^  I use the NKJV (New King James Version) myself.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Indeed, King James' crew was working 16 centuries after the fact.
> *
> If you're concerned about the translation, there actually is no shortage of people willing to teach you Greek and Hebrew.  If you're really unwilling to rely on other people's translations, there really is no other way.
> 
> Of course you could always find a group of people who make a habit of studying Greek and Hebrew and rely on their opinion.  Some of them are quite serious about it.


...and the gospels themselves were first written 66-70 AD-and that's only Mark (exact date is uncertain).  And the original texts that scholars work from are copies of copies of copies.  Textual criticism and study gets more and more complicated and interesting the more you study it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Who knows? TJ obviously missed the whole point of Jesus's incarnation. It wasn't to reform Jewish religion and preach the purest system of morals ever. It was to die for the sins of men and rise again.


 It seems like there should have been an easier path to sin forgiveness. Couldn't Jesus just have asked his dad to lighten up and to zap Satan to righteousness?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> As I understand it, he cut the important parts out of his Bible.


*Jefferson Bible* - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Jefferson*_*Bible*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm with Tom.


 Me too, on this and a lot of other things!

----------


## wizardwatson

I've read Jefferson bible.  He removed all the references to divinity and miracles.  

Jesus was not here to teach morals.  He commanded you to be moral.  His teaching was mostly reiteration.  Without his divine authority he couldn't command anything.  Moral teachers don't raise the dead and walk on water.

To say he was a moral teacher is to throw away and negate the whole thing.

It is precisely the part that offends people like Jefferson-the miracles and divine authority-that is the meat and potatos of Christianity.

Matthew 11:6 "And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me."

----------


## wizardwatson

And another thing I've been wanting to mention.

Perhaps this thread about someone who tried to dumb down and castrate Christianity is a good place to mention it.

Changing this forum from "Religion" to "Peace through Religion" is a perfect irony for how people want to soften the "offensiveness" of Christianity.  Christianity is most certainly not about "peace".  Jesus SPECIFICALLY said he did not come to bring peace.  In fact when he comes back he's scheduled to give a major ass-whooping to Satan's army in flaming vengeance.

Christianity is a very serious life/death soul-damning/saving affair.  It is not about everyone chilling out and singing Kumbiyah.

The Jefferson bible is a perfect example of "what we all can agree on".  "We are all the same."  "God loves everyone".

God most certainly does not love everyone.  He does not love the sons-of-satan-demons walking around in human bodies who will be cast alive into the lake of fire.

----------


## Deborah K

I don't think anyone really believes Jefferson was an authority on Christianity.  He had an opinion about it, and he expressed it.  He dismisses Christ's miracles without which, Christ would have been long forgotten as just another 'prophet', and not someone whose teachings and miracles still resonate over 2,000 years later.  Why do his teachings and miracles still matter?  Because his message is timeless. It works. And, it's more than just about forgiveness, and charity, and treating each other well; he taught how truly important accepting the gift of faith is - 'it moves mountains'.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> And another thing I've been wanting to mention.
> 
> Perhaps this thread about someone who tried to dumb down and castrate Christianity is a good place to mention it.
> 
> Changing this forum from "Religion" to "Peace through Religion" is a perfect irony for how people want to soften the "offensiveness" of Christianity. Christianity is most certainly not about "peace". Jesus SPECIFICALLY said he did not come to bring peace. In fact when he comes back he's scheduled to give a major ass-whooping to Satan's army in flaming vengeance.
> 
> Christianity is a very serious life/death soul-damning/saving affair. It is not about everyone chilling out and singing Kumbiyah.
> 
> The Jefferson bible is a perfect example of "what we all can agree on". "We are all the same." "God loves everyone".
> ...


God didn't seem to much care for the Moses time inhabitants of the land he promised to the Jews either.

*This Land Is Mine (video)*

----------


## robert68

> It seems like there should have been an easier path to sin forgiveness. Couldn't Jesus just have asked his dad to lighten up and to zap Satan to righteousness?



"Almighty gods" are powerless on the significant matters.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> "Almighty gods" are powerless on the significant matters.


 That would seem to cast a shadow of doubt on all that omniscience and omnipotence thing.

----------


## robert68

> That would seem to cast a shadow of doubt on all that omniscience and omnipotent thing.


It would. But I'm just the messenger.

----------


## wizardwatson

> God didn't seem to much care for the Moses time inhabitants of the land he promised to the Jews either.
> 
> *This Land Is Mine (video)*


Nope.  Nor to the Jews themselves for the most part.

The moral of the story is that if you follow God, your earthly life will probably be filled with lots o' sufferin'.  

Just ask the Christians getting crucified by ISIS.

People always seem to think that by pointing out that "God allows bad and injust things to happen" that his existence is somehow preposterous.  The "universe" allows it does it not?

God is the author of evil and the destoryer of evil.  Creation is the story of Gods hatred of evil and its eradication, aka separating himself from it.  

That this seems to create a philosophical paradox is a weakness of intellectualism not of established truth.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Nope. Nor to the Jews themselves for the most part.
> 
> The moral of the story is that if you follow God, your earthly life will probably be filled with lots o' sufferin'. 
> 
> Just ask the Christians getting crucified by ISIS.
> 
> People always seem to think that by pointing out that "God allows bad and injust things to happen" that his existence is somehow preposterous. The "universe" allows it does it not?
> 
> God is the author of evil and the destoryer of evil. Creation is the story of Gods hatred of evil and its eradication, aka separating himself from it. 
> ...


 Yeah, bad things are bound to happen when you make and/or allow Satan to be a Prince of This World.

----------


## otherone

> Changing this forum from "Religion" to "Peace through Religion" is a perfect irony for how people want to soften the "offensiveness" of _Christianity_.


That sounds like you're blaming Christianity for the fractiousness of some of it's followers.

----------


## wizardwatson

> That sounds like you're blaming Christianity for the fractiousness of some of it's followers.


No.  I'm blaming the dumbed down milquetoast excuse for what is called "Christianity" on the vast majority of its followers.

----------


## otherone

> No.  I'm blaming the dumbed down milquetoast excuse for what is called "Christianity" on the vast majority of its followers.


What does that have to do with a forum that expects a modicum of decorum from it's participants?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What does that have to do with a forum that expects a modicum of decorum from it's participants?


How much decorum is there in an expected modicum?

----------


## otherone

> How much decorum is there in an expected modicum?


Ask SF and Nang where the line is drawn.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ask SF and Nang where the line is drawn.


 I think I'd much rather ask the winners, they seem to have a much better feel for it and know better.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yeah, bad things are bound to happen when you make and/or allow Satan to be a Prince of This World.


We didn't 'make' or 'allow' it.  God did.  We were put here to resist Satan.

----------


## wizardwatson

> What does that have to do with a forum that expects a modicum of decorum from it's participants?


Nothing I suppose.

I just believe discussion of Christianity should actually have substance and it doesn't here in my estimation.  It seems to be either arguing about Calvinism or mutual consolation.

I was simply pointing out how the forum name change was in line with the double edged rotting of true Christian thought that ends either in over-intellectualization or excessively emotive "faithiness".  Obeying, following Christ and seeking the Kingdom of God is swept under the rug and mutually ignored because, well, "we can't all agree on it".  Bull$#@!.  We don't want to obey it, that's why we think that lie.

Anywho, I only point that out because there's a parallel on this forum with respect to the real mission.  Which is ACTION with respect to liberty.  The same way people rebel against the truth of Christianity they rebel against the absolute dismal state the so-called liberty movement is in and pretend to be doing something when we're not.

It's a disgrace, and slowly over the last 7 years all the voices who pointed this out and tried to create action have slowly died out.  People like tangent4ronpaul who STILL after all these years keeps posting his "adopt a meetup" threads, and a sprinkle of others have become the Ron Pauls of the Ron Paul movement.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Nothing I suppose.
> 
> I just believe discussion of Christianity should actually have substance and it doesn't here in my estimation. It seems to be either arguing about Calvinism or mutual consolation.
> 
> I was simply pointing out how the forum name change was in line with the double edged rotting of true Christian thought that ends either in over-intellectualization or excessively emotive "faithiness". Obeying, following Christ and seeking the Kingdom of God is swept under the rug and mutually ignored because, well, "we can't all agree on it". Bull$#@!. We don't want to obey it, that's why we think that lie.
> 
> Anywho, I only point that out because there's a parallel on this forum with respect to the real mission. Which is ACTION with respect to liberty. The same way people rebel against the truth of Christianity they rebel against the absolute dismal state the so-called liberty movement is in and pretend to be doing something when we're not.
> 
> It's a disgrace, and slowly over the last 7 years all the voices who pointed this out and tried to create action have slowly died out. People like tangent4ronpaul who STILL after all these years keeps posting his "adopt a meetup" threads, and a sprinkle of others have become the Ron Pauls of the Ron Paul movement.


I'll take a modicum of truth over a modicum of decorum every time. Call it like you see it.

----------


## Deborah K

> Nothing I suppose.
> 
> I just believe discussion of Christianity should actually have substance and it doesn't here in my estimation.  It seems to be either arguing about Calvinism or mutual consolation.
> 
> I was simply pointing out how the forum name change was in line with the double edged rotting of true Christian thought that ends either in over-intellectualization or excessively emotive "faithiness".  Obeying, following Christ and seeking the Kingdom of God is swept under the rug and mutually ignored because, well, "we can't all agree on it".  Bull$#@!.  We don't want to obey it, that's why we think that lie.
> 
> Anywho, I only point that out because there's a parallel on this forum with respect to the real mission.  Which is ACTION with respect to liberty.  The same way people rebel against the truth of Christianity they rebel against the absolute dismal state the so-called liberty movement is in and pretend to be doing something when we're not.
> 
> It's a disgrace, and slowly over the last 7 years all the voices who pointed this out and tried to create action have slowly died out.  People like tangent4ronpaul who STILL after all these years keeps posting his "adopt a meetup" threads, and a sprinkle of others have become the Ron Pauls of the Ron Paul movement.


That's pretty harsh, David.

----------


## wizardwatson

> That's pretty harsh, David.


Well, that's how I feel.  Things are getting worse and the casual attitude seems to get more prevalent.

Honestly though I don't get upset all that much.  All this is ultimately biblical.  Things are to get worse.  The day of the Lords wrath is inching toward us and just as in the days of Noah the flood will come and people will be caught unawares.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well, that's how I feel.  Things are getting worse and the casual attitude seems to get more prevalent.
> 
> Honestly though I don't get upset all that much.  All this is ultimately biblical.  Things are to get worse.  The day of the Lords wrath is inching toward us and just as in the days of Noah the flood will come and people will be caught unawares.


Yes they will.  But as King Solomon states in Ecclesiastes:  Whatever is, has been long ago; and whatever is going to be has been before; God brings to pass again what was in the distant past and disappeared.

History is cyclical.  People are, have been, and always will be sheeple, for the most part.  Even Christ is referred to as the Good Shepard.

Is the bloom off the rose with regard to the freedom movement?  Yeah, I think it is.  And I think it has more to do with how the Bentons of the movement regarded the different factions within the movement.  Tossing many off as though we were pariahs instead of actually making hay and creating a formidable force out of the support.  But, that's what happens when a movement lacks real leadership.  Dr. Paul is a great man with an important message, but he lacked the ability to lead and to surround himself with leaders.  

We are fractured, splintered because we can't seem to get past our own differences and focus on the one thing we all agree on: individual liberty. 

As to the new name of the religion forum; I think it's an attempt at creating an understanding of peaceful exchange of religious ideology.  I see nothing wrong with that.  What, specifically, would you prefer to encounter in this forum that would be of more "substance"?  I'm curious.

You inferred in an earlier post that Christ didn't come here to bring peace.  I think that you may be misinterpreting what he meant by that.

----------


## otherone

> I'll take a modicum of truth over a modicum of decorum every time. Call it like you see it.


I'd settle for civility.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'd settle for civility.


  Truth and civility, why not both?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Who knows? TJ obviously missed the whole point of Jesus's incarnation. It wasn't to reform Jewish religion and preach the purest system of morals ever. It was to die for the sins of men and rise again.


 I personally don't think that TJ missed many points of the things he studied. But he was no expert bible scholar. I'd say that Jesus did attempt to reform the Jewish religion with his sermons and teachings. Wasn't he talking primarily to the Jews? 


Perchance was that only the made up cover story after the fact, by his followers and disciples, to explain the embarrassing death of their savior and the son of God?

----------


## Deborah K

> I personally don't think that TJ missed many points of the things he studied. But he was no expert bible scholar. I'd say that Jesus did attempt to reform the Jewish religion with his sermons and teachings. Wasn't he talking primarily to the Jews?


I think so too.  And furthermore, I think that is what he meant when he said he did not come to bring peace:

(Matthew 10:34-36)--"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

(Luke 12:51,52)--"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three . . . "

He knew full well that some Jews were going to have a real problem with what he was preaching.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I think so too. And furthermore, I think that is what he meant when he said he did not come to bring peace:
> 
> (Matthew 10:34-36)--"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a mans enemies will be the members of his household."
> 
> (Luke 12:51,52)--"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three . . . "
> 
> He knew full well that some Jews were going to have a real problem with what he was preaching.


 What a rabble rouser, it's no wonder that I like him.  I understand why Herod and the Romans didn't.

----------


## Deborah K

> What a rabble rouser, it's no wonder that I like him.  I understand why Herod and the Romans didn't.


Or the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Or the Pharisees and the Sadducees.


  Executed by a conspiracy between church and state, how appropriate?

----------


## Deborah K

> Executed by a conspiracy between church and state, how appropriate?


The Founders were much smarter and more insightful than many would like to give them credit for.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> As I understand it, he cut the important parts out of his Bible.


  Apparently, they weren't the important parts to him.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The Founders were much smarter and more insightful than many would like to give them credit for.


  Too bad that not enough of them were able to see through and stop the Federalists.

----------


## Deborah K

> Too bad that not enough of them were able to see through and stop the Federalists.


I tend to agree.  But I'm also reminded of Franklin's statement when a woman approached him after they ratified the Constitution, and asked:  "Sir, what form of government have you created for us?" To which he replied:  "A Republic madame, if you can keep it."

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I tend to agree. But I'm also reminded of Franklin's statement when a woman approached him after they ratified the Constitution, and asked: "Sir, what form of government have you created for us?" To which he replied: "A Republic madame, if you can keep it."


 It would seem that old Ben may have had some doubts about it too.

----------


## PierzStyx

> As I understand it, he cut the important parts out of his Bible.


Actually he cut the unimportant parts, the miracles, out of the Bible. He was seeking to try and get down to the purest truths that Jesus taught, without the distraction of the miracles. Which makes sense. The miracles don't build faith and don't save. They aren't even really proofs of Christ's divinity. Its His teachings that are proof of His place as Messiah and the Son of God. The miracles support faith gained from studying His teachings, not the other way around.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Normally there's some wisdom in TJ's quotes about religion, but this one is quite ignorant. Apparently his knowledge of Christianity is limited to some aspects of the Roman Empire from Constantine forward and most of Protestantism. I am disappoint. IMO, he understood Calvin better.


 When you apply Occam's razor and Carl Sagan's dictum concerning extraordinary claims it seems that many parts of the old Bible pretty much fail to pass muster. I think TJ was just separating the wheat from his view of the chaff.

----------


## PierzStyx

> It seems like there should have been an easier path to sin forgiveness. Couldn't Jesus just have asked his dad to lighten up and to zap Satan to righteousness?


Everyone has agency, an individual will that God respects and will not force Himself upon. Its part of our inheritance as His children. Even Satan has agency, or he did before he sold himself to sin. Now he is controlled by his hatred, his lusts, his desires, rather than controlling them. That is the ultimately what the degeneracy of sin si about, taking a child of God, stripping them of their agency, and turning them into slaves to themselves and those around them, things to be acted upon instead of things to act. 

Forgiveness comes through Christ because He alone was able to balance the two eternal laws of Justice (which demands a punishment for sin) and Mercy (which demands God judge as mercifully as possible.) Christ, having taken our sins upon Himself also suffered the just punishment for them. Therefore He is able to extend Mercy to those who are willing to accept His sacrifice for them. What He asks in return is that we pledge our lives in discipleship to Him so that He can uplift us to become like Himself.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Actually he cut the unimportant parts, the miracles, out of the Bible. He was seeking to try and get down to the purest truths that Jesus taught, without the distraction of the miracles. Which makes sense. The miracles don't build faith and don't save. They aren't even really proofs of Christ's divinity. Its His teachings that are proof of His place as Messiah and the Son of God. The miracles support faith gained from studying His teachings, not the other way around.


+rep

----------


## Deborah K

> It would seem that old Ben may have had some doubts about it too.


He understood human nature.  No document will stand if it isn't adhered to.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ask SF and Nang where the line is drawn.


Is SF ever getting unbanned?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> He understood human nature. No document will stand if it isn't adhered to.


 Of course a simpler answer may that Ben was aware of and a party to this. http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/06/13/fix/

----------


## Sonny Tufts

Ben Franklin also had doubts about the divinity of Jesus.  In a letter written a month before his death, he stated:




> Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, _and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble_. I see no harm however in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed, _especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Believers, in his Government of the World, with any particular Marks of his Displeasure_.  Letter to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790


I particularly like the italicized portions.

----------


## erowe1

> Ben Franklin also had doubts about the divinity of Jesus.  In a letter written a month before his death, he stated:
> 
> 
> 
> I particularly like the italicized portions.


Notice how Franklin too totally neglects the most important point, the fact that Jesus died for men's sins and rose again. To face that fact would force him to address fundamental questions he wants to avoid, and to see Jesus as something more than a good moral teacher. But he can't deny it either, because he would make a fool of himself by resorting to transparent special pleading.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Notice how Franklin too totally neglects the most important point, the fact that Jesus died for men's sins and rose again. To face that fact would force him to address fundamental questions he wants to avoid, and to see Jesus as something more than a good moral teacher. But he can't deny it either, because he would make a fool of himself by resorting to transparent special pleading.


 If it is so blatantly obvious then why would old Ben and TJ reject it? Could it be that the story fails to stand up to the harsh light of scientific/enlightenment era scrutiny? Fully human AND fully divine, isn't that how the story supposedly goes?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> We didn't 'make' or 'allow' it. God did. We were put here to resist Satan.


 Maybe we need to have been made stronger and/or Satan made weaker, because the world doesn't seem to be turning out as hoped for.

----------


## erowe1

> If it is so blatantly obvious then why would old Ben and TJ reject it?


Through self-deception. Notice how the resurrection is the elephant in the room. Why don't either mention it?

The story does stand up to the harsh light of all scrutiny. That is precisely the problem they face.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Through self-deception. Notice how the resurrection is the elephant in the room. Why don't either mention it?
> 
> The story does stand up to the harsh light of all scrutiny. That is precisely the problem they face.


  Probably because they didn't/couldn't buy the resurrection story as reality.  What you accept as gospel, obviously they didn't.  I understand. Franklin was a Freemason and Jefferson a Rosicrucian, do you think that just might explain something about it?

----------


## erowe1

> Probably because they didn't/couldn't buy the resurrection story as reality.  What you accept as gospel, obviously they didn't.  I understand. Franklin was a Freemason and Jefferson a Rosicrucian, do you think that just might explain something about it?


But why didn't they accept it? That is the question. It wasn't on account of any proper use of critical thinking on their parts.

Again, notice how it is the elephant in the room. They tiptoe around it, daring not to mention the issue, lest having to try to explain it away they make fools of themselves by the obvious departures from the very same critical thinking they're enjoining on others that would be necessary to explain away the evidence.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *But why didn't they accept it?* That is the question. It wasn't on account of any proper use of critical thinking on their parts.
> 
> Again, notice how it is the elephant in the room. They tiptoe around it, daring not to mention the issue, lest having to try to explain it away they make fools of themselves by the obvious departures from the very same critical thinking they're enjoining on others that would be necessary to explain away the evidence.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, they didn't have it. Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is most usually the truth. Resurrection is not simplest. You need much better evidence than what is written in a 2,000+ year old book compiled by a Roman Empire committee and a subsequent very checkered and questionable history. 

Some folks just have higher standards for credibility than others.

----------


## erowe1

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, they didn't have it.


What's your basis for saying that?

----------


## erowe1

> Some folks just have higher standards for credibility than others.


Someone who makes themselves believe the incredible claim that the resurrection of Jesus didn't actually happen must have very low standards for credibility.

Again, notice the embarrassment of Jefferson and Franklin about this.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Someone who makes themselves believe the incredible claim that the resurrection of Jesus didn't actually happen must have very low standards for credibility.
> 
> Again, notice the embarrassment of Jefferson and Franklin about this.


  Talk is cheap. Where is the evidence?

----------


## erowe1

> Talk is cheap. Where is the evidence?


Have you ever looked? Have you ever read any of the numerous books that present and critically evaluate the evidence, of which there is plenty?

Christianity owes its entire existence to the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. It is, and always has been, going back to the very beginning of the movement in the 30's AD, centered on the claim of the historicity of that event, and not just some moral teachings. There were numerous eye witnesses of Jesus after his resurrection, who were convinced enough of the reality of it that they were willing to die rather than recant their claims about what they had seen and touched with their own eyes and hands.

----------


## acptulsa

> But why didn't they accept it? That is the question. It wasn't on account of any proper use of critical thinking on their parts.


Why do they need to?

If someone says Jesus created the finest moral code the human race has ever seen, does he really need to be _more_ impressed by the crucifixion and the redemption of sins?  Is that not at least as great a miracle as resurrection?  Really?

I am reminded of John Lennon talking about people caring about the man Jesus but ignoring what He said.  Is that not rejection of Him?  If impressing us with His miracles was the main point, then why did He encourage His disciples to call Him 'Teacher'?  If the temptation have a greater reverence for Him than for His divine lessons _isn't_ what the anti-Christ is counting upon to help him pull off his evil agenda, then why would he misidentify himself as Jesus Reincarnate at all?

Jesus' miraculous forgiveness could only be more important than His miraculously wise moral code to someone who is trying to sneak into Heaven through a loophole, rather than go to the trouble to get their heart fit enough to be worthy of the place and the community which will make up God's Kingdom.

Seems to me placing more emphasis on the lessons Jesus seems to have come here to deliver, and which the miracles seem to have been done to call attention to and to give weight to, is (like the restrictions on the federal government in the Constitution) is an honest effort to keep the tail from growing so big and unwieldy that it wags the dog.  And if all you want is for the tail to wag the dog, you'll have to turn to someone besides me for encouragement.




> ...and not just some moral teachings.


That's a mighty damned cavalier attitude to take toward what God took the trouble to assume human form in order to deliver to us.  That's a mighty cavalier attitude to take toward what Matthew 25 plainly says is the true key to the gate of the Kingdom of God.

----------


## erowe1

> Why do they need to?
> 
> If someone says Jesus created the finest moral code the human race has ever seen, does he really need to be _more_ impressed by the crucifixion and the redemption of sins?  Is that not at least as great a miracle as resurrection?  Really?


What I said has nothing to do with the greatness of the miracle. I agree with you on that point. I don't believe that the main point of his miracles was to impress us. But if they fail to see the importance of the death and resurrection of Jesus, then they ignore what was at the very center of his own teaching. If you care about what Jesus said, then you must care about who he was and his, because he said a lot about that, and nothing else he said can be separated from it, especially when it came to things he said that challenged the prevailing views. There was nothing novel about moral dictums you'd be left with if you took away Jesus's audacious claims about himself.

----------


## erowe1

> That's a mighty damned cavalier attitude to take toward what God took the trouble to assume human form in order to deliver to us.


God did not take on human flesh in order to deliver a moral code to us. This would be an interesting study for you. Read through the New Testament. No, for that matter, restrict yourself to the red letters, the words of Jesus himself, and see how he himself answers the question of why he came here.

----------


## acptulsa

> 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
> 
> 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> 
> 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
> 
> 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
> 
> 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
> ...


Jesus claimed to be the Way and the Light.  The Way and the Light.  The Way and the Light.

There's your 'red letters.'  If you want to argue with someone, argue with Jesus.

Oh, and if His Holy moral code was so unremarkable for the era, as you claim, how did it accomplish the unprecedented feat of uniting the Romans and the Pharisees against it?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Have you ever looked? Have you ever read any of the numerous books that present and critically evaluate the evidence, of which there is plenty?
> 
> *Christianity owes its entire existence to the fact of the resurrection of Jesus.* It is, and always has been, going back to the very beginning of the movement in the 30's AD, centered on the claim of the historicity of that event, and not just some moral teachings. There were numerous eye witnesses of Jesus after his resurrection, who were convinced enough of the reality of it that they were willing to die rather than recant their claims about what they had seen and touched with their own eyes and hands.



I'd probably have to say that Christianity owes its entire existence to St. Paul (THE ROMAN [marketing guy]). Resurrection? "Utube or it didn't happen", and probably not even then.

I don't want hearsay or books of scholarly opinions on the matter. Folks have been dying over falsehoods for millenia. I only want, and will only accept, hard irrefutable *PHYSICAL* evidence. 

(Its kinda fun playing TJ, in his absence.)

*"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" .... but first it will really tick you off.*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Someone who makes themselves believe the incredible claim that the resurrection of Jesus didn't actually happen must have very low standards for credibility.
> 
> Again, notice the embarrassment of Jefferson and Franklin about this.


  Actually I notice the embarassment of the Christians over a dead messiah and savior.

Who is really in need of a fabricated cover story?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What's your basis for saying that?


  Uhhhh, it doesn't exist.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Someone who makes themselves believe the incredible claim that the resurrection of Jesus  twelve labors of Hercules didn't actually happen must have very low standards for credibility.


From an evidentiary standpoint, aren't these equivalent?  True, more people believe in the Resurrection than they do in Hercules, but consensus isn't evidence.

----------


## otherone

> I don't want hearsay or books of scholarly opinions on the matter. Folks have been dying over falsehoods for millenia. I only want, and will only accept, hard irrefutable *PHYSICAL* evidence.


Corroborating historical accounts wouldn't hurt.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't want hearsay or books of scholarly opinions on the matter. Folks have been dying over falsehoods for millenia.


Doesn't mean Jesus is a falsehood.  Just means anyone who says 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a just reason to kill someone is telling a falsehood.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Doesn't mean Jesus is a falsehood. Just means anyone who says 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a just reason to kill someone is telling a falsehood.


  Agreed!

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Corroborating historical accounts wouldn't hurt.


 True, but they don't really help out much either without the capacity to check, cross examine and verify.  It just doesn't quite come up to the standard of required extraordinary evidence.

----------


## otherone

> True, but they don't really help out much either without the capacity to check, cross examine and verify.


I'll settle for anything. _anything_.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'll settle for anything. _anything_.


 Perhaps this is where faith is supposed to be kicked in. That's always struck me to be pretty much of a weasily cop out. We can't really prove it, so just have faith and believe.  

But whatever floats your boat.

----------


## erowe1

> If you want to argue with someone, argue with Jesus.
> 
> Oh, and if His Holy moral code was so unremarkable for the era, as you claim, how did it accomplish the unprecedented feat of uniting the Romans and the Pharisees against it?


His moral code didn't accomplish that. It was his claims about himself that did that. Again, read the Gospels and see for yourself.

I'm not arguing with Jesus. I'm taking him at his own word.

----------


## erowe1

> I'd probably have to say that Christianity owes its entire existence to St. Paul


What about the Christianity that already existed before Paul believed it? The faith that he shared with Jesus's own brothers and his original disciples?

----------


## erowe1

> Actually I notice the embarassment of the Christians over a dead messiah and savior.
> 
> Who is really in need of a fabricated cover story?


Why would Christians be embarrassed about that? If they believed Jesus didn't rise again, they wouldn't have been Christians.

----------


## erowe1

> Corroborating historical accounts wouldn't hurt.


There are lots of corroborating historical accounts of Jesus' resurrection.

----------


## erowe1

> From an evidentiary standpoint, aren't these equivalent?  True, more people believe in the Resurrection than they do in Hercules, but consensus isn't evidence.


No. They're totally different. We have no evidence that Hercules existed at all. We have overwhelming evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Christianity itself owes its existence to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

----------


## erowe1

> Uhhhh, it doesn't exist.


What's your basis for saying this?

----------


## erowe1

> Doesn't mean Jesus is a falsehood.  Just means anyone who says 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a just reason to kill someone is telling a falsehood.


Lots of people have said that, including lots of people before Jesus. Jesus's opponents didn't disagree with him about that.

----------


## TER

> His moral code didn't accomplish that. It was his claims about himself that did that. Again, read the Gospels and see for yourself.
> 
> I'm not arguing with Jesus. I'm taking him at his own word.


Well said.  There seems to be this pervading delusion that Christianity and the Church is the result of a mere man who taught righteousness and eternal and divine truths.  That the Church was established from the beginning not as a confession that Jesus is The Lord and Son of God, but a man like you and me or a prophet of certain truths.  These people who believe this lie are sorely ignorant of the history and the stated truths of the Church which have been handed down from the very beginning, by the very Apostles.   That the reason why people are killed even today believing that Christ is the Savior is _not_ because He taught morals, but because He rose the dead.  The Apostles did not suffer exile, hardships, torture, and violent deaths simply because Jesus taught them to love their enemies.  That is a lie.  They believed Him and His teachings and followed such commandments because he gave sight to the blind, healed the paralytics, rose the dead and fed the multitudes with food from Heaven.  They trusted in His words because He showed Himself to be above everything and that in His Name demons were defeated and miracles were occurring.  Because He taught them that He is the Logos of God, the I Am, and the Creator of all things, and not only said it but proved this claim by His miracles.  With those lips that spoke the golden rule and the hidden truths in life, He also said that He is One with the Father, the only One sent to save humankind which was dead in its sins.  And not only save it, but to join it and so lift it up to the blessed eternal and divine nature and eternal life.  Christianity's foundation is not "Christ was a good teacher" (though He was and is), but "Christ is risen from the dead!"  and by Him too will I overcome this world by the Holy Spirit He came to rain down upon humankind (to those who are willing).  Because of THAT, because of having proven Himself to be above all things and Lord of creation and the Holy Spirit filling the lives and souls of those who put their trust in Him, did Christianity and the Church begin and will forever be.  

This fairytale that the early believers of Christ appealed to Him simply for moral reasons is a joke and revisionism at its finest.  They believed Him and suffered for Him because He proved it when He said that He is the Light, the Truth, and the Life and that no one can come to the Father without going through Him.  Not through His teachings did He say, but through Him, His very Person, His very being.  

The most ignorant are those who claim Christ is a mere prophet and not the Son of God, even though they believe He was born from a Virgin, and make the mockery of an assertion that someone else was crucified and not Him.  But what will they say when they stand before Him at the end of their life and see the marks in His hands which He endured for them?  Will they believe then?  And what if it is too late then?   The lies and the damage has already been done and there is no repentance after death.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What about the Christianity that already existed before Paul believed it? The faith that he shared with Jesus's own brothers and his original disciples?


  Perhaps TJ covered that in the OP quote.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There are lots of corroborating historical accounts of Jesus' resurrection.


Can you list a few for me?  I'm not nearly as well-read on this as I would like to be.

----------


## TER

> Perhaps TJ covered that in the OP quote.


And why should I put any authority in TJ when it comes to religion, especially when it comes to the early Church which he knew extremely little about living most of his life in colonial America?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Why would Christians be embarrassed about that? If they believed Jesus didn't rise again, they wouldn't have been Christians.


If I were a 33 AD follower of Jesus, the messiah, holy savior, son of God, king of the Jews, etc. etc. and he got whacked by a conspiracy of the church and state, I'd be pretty embarrassed. Also to carry on the message and teachings, a persuasive cover story would need to be created to attempt to snatch a victory from the massive jaws of the death defeat. 

Let's see, yes he died but it was necessary in order to forgive mankind's cumulative sins for all time, and then, and then, guess what? He came back after he died and then he went heaven to be with his dad. Yeah, I think we can sell that, let's just give it a shot, who knows?

I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just looking for the extraordinary evidence required to support the extraordinary claims of resurrection from death. 

If he could come back, then did he really have to go? And why?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What's your basis for saying that?


  I just may not be understanding your question.  Would you care to rephrase it?

----------


## TER

> If I were a 33 AD follower of Jesus, the messiah, holy savior, son of God, king of the Jews, etc. etc. and he got whacked by a conspiracy of the church and state, I'd be pretty embarrassed. Also to carry on the message and teachings, a persuasive cover story would need to be created to attempt to snatch a victory from the massive jaws of the death defeat. 
> 
> Let's see, yes he died but it was necessary in order to forgive mankind's cumulative sins for all time, and then, and then, guess what? He came back after he died and then he went heaven to be with his dad. Yeah, I think we can sell that, let's just give it a shot, who knows?
> 
> I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just looking for the extraordinary evidence required to support the extraordinary claims of resurrection from death. 
> 
> If he could come back, then did he really have to go? And why?


It is because you misunderstand how Christ saves us that you ask these questions.  He has not left us.  He is in the heart of all those who confess Him Lord and Savior.  Where the Holy Spirit, so there is the Son and the Father.  His ascension into Heaven is for our benefit, that our human nature might be at the right hand of the Father, so that we might enter into union with Him through the Holy Spirit of God.  And out of His great love and mercy, He allows this world which rejects Him to have more time for repentance and to come to Him, so that the Kingdom may be full of those who share in His love which is the light and the life of the world.

----------


## erowe1

> If I were a 33 AD follower of Jesus, the messiah, holy savior, son of God, king of the Jews, etc. etc. and he got whacked by a conspiracy of the church and state, I'd be pretty embarrassed. Also to carry on the message and teachings, a persuasive cover story would need to be created to attempt to snatch a victory from the massive jaws of the death defeat.


If you were embarrassed, why would you carry on those teachings?

And when required to die unless you recant your belief in Jesus, if you don't really even believe your own claims about him, why would you die?

In your scenario Christianity could never have come into existence. The fact that it does exist is proof that the resurrection really happened.

----------


## erowe1

> I just may not be understanding your question.  Would you care to rephrase it?


Do you have any reasons to believe what you said? If so, what are those reasons?

----------


## erowe1

> Can you list a few for me?  I'm not nearly as well-read on this as I would like to be.


The main ones are most of the books that Christians typically regard as the books of the New Testament.

----------


## TER

> If you were embarrassed, why would you carry on those teachings?
> 
> And when required to die unless you recant your belief in Jesus, if you don't really even believe your own claims about him, why would you die?
> 
> In your scenario Christianity could never have come into existence. The fact that it does exist is proof that the resurrection really happened.


Many men have claimed to be the Messiah, even before Christ was born, and after they died their followers scattered and they have been lost in the pages of history.  That is because they never rose from the dead, sat with them, ate with them, and then escorted by angels ascended back to the heavens whereby they came from.  Had Christ not truly risen from the dead, then Christianity would have died with him.  But because He was witnessed to have done so, because hundreds saw Him alive and with power and the marks on His hands still showing, were they willing to undergo extreme tortures and suffering in order to rise with Him.   Muhammed had enough sense to at least make up a story that the early Christians were fooled, and that it was someone else who was crucified instead of Christ and that is why so many saw Him afterwards.  Too bad for Muhammed, he has still yet to feel the weight of this lie he perpetrated until the culmination of this world occurs and he will answer for all those who he has deceived on account of it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> And why should I put any authority in TJ when it comes to religion, especially when it comes to the early Church which he knew extremely little about living most of his life in colonial America?


 Oh, oh they've brought in the big guns, now I'm in trouble. 

I don't know that you should. I don't really know that I do. I'm certainly not asking you to. Though I'd certainly guess that TJ traveled more of his world in his time than Jesus and his crew traveled in their time, if we're only talking mileage.

Also, I've always been a huge fan of TJ and the D of I, since I was born on July, 4th. I've read quite a bit about him. He is my favorite founding father. In a Matrix sense, TJ took the red pill, as have I. We're kindred spirits.

----------


## TER

> Oh, oh they've brought in the big guns, now I'm in trouble. 
> 
> I don't know that you should. I don't really know that I do. I'm certainly not asking you to. Though I'd certainly guess that TJ traveled more of his world in his time than Jesus and his crew traveled in their time, if we're only talking mileage.
> 
> Also, I've always been a huge fan of TJ and the D of I, since I was born on July, 4th. I've read quite a bit about him. He is my favorite founding father. In a Matrix sense, TJ took the red pill, as have I. We're kindred spirits.


And I am sure I have traveled more of the world in terms of miles than TJ did.  And you and probably most of the people on this board as well.  And I am willing to bet you have read more books than TJ did.  Especially about the early Church.  And if you haven't, then you have much more information available at your fingertips than TJ ever did to learn about it.  TJ was a revolutionary philosophical thinker on libertarian ideas in a time when those libertarian ideas began to flourish.  That does not translate to him being a saint or even any kind of authority on religion.   You post a quote of his in the OP which only demonstrates his utter ignorance in Church history, yet because he wrote the Declaration of Independence, I am suppossed to put any weight on it?  You are correct that I don't have to, nor will I.  The better question would be 'why would you?'.  The information and the truth is out there and you are much more advantaged then he was to find it and learn it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It is because you misunderstand how Christ saves us that you ask these questions. He has not left us. He is in the heart of all those who confess Him Lord and Savior. Where the Holy Spirit, so there is the Son and the Father. His ascension into Heaven is for our benefit, that our human nature might be at the right hand of the Father, so that we might enter into union with Him through the Holy Spirit of God. And out of His great love and mercy, He allows this world which rejects Him to have more time for repentance and to come to Him, so that the Kingdom may be full of those who share in His love which is the light and the life of the world.


 I'm sorry, I fail to see that it's somehow my fault and lack of understanding for not buying your story because of a lack of sufficient evidence on your part. 

BTW, I'm not exactly a rookie or a rube at this kind of stuff, just so you know.

----------


## TER

> I'm sorry, I fail to see that it's somehow my fault and lack of understanding for not buying your story because of a lack of sufficient evidence on your part. 
> 
> BTW, I'm not exactly a rookie or a rube at this kind of stuff, just so you know.


Your fault is that you put TJ's opinion and witness over the opinion and witness of the Apostles.  You show yourself to be worse then a rookie.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> And I am sure I have traveled more of the world in terms of miles than TJ did. And you and probably most of the people on this board as well. And I am willing to bet you have read more books than TJ did. Especially about the early Church. And if you haven't, then you have much more information available at your fingertips than TJ ever did to learn about it. TJ was a revolutionary philosophical thinker on libertarian ideas in a time when those libertarian ideas began to flourish. That does not translate to him being a saint or even any kind of authority on religion. You post a quote of his in the OP which only demonstrates his utter ignorance in Church history, yet because he wrote the Declaration of Independence, I am suppossed to put any weight on it? You are correct that I don't have to, nor will I. The better question would be 'why would you?'. The information and the truth is out there and you are much more advantaged then he was to find it and learn it.


I've never claimed nor even implied sainthood for TJ nor would he. He was pretty accomplished in several areas and very interested in several others. He wrote a book about Jesus, I liked it. Here's a copy for you.

https://archive.org/download/thomasj...t012049mbp.pdf 

Tell me what you think of it, or have you already? 

You are not supposed to do anything in this regard.  Your call, (for you).

Why would I? Why not? Show me your evidence and I'm perfectly capable of making up my own mind and the determination of the truth based on it. Yeah, you're right, there definitely IS lots of stuff out there.  About 95% of everything is crap.

----------


## TER

> I've never claimed nor even implied sainthood for TJ nor would he. He was pretty accomplished in several areas and very interested in several others. He wrote a book about Jesus, I liked it. Here's a copy for you.
> 
> https://archive.org/download/thomasj...t012049mbp.pdf 
> 
> Tell me what you think of it, or have you already? 
> 
> You are not supposed to do anything in this regard.  Your call, (for you).
> 
> Why would I? Why not? Show me your evidence and I'm perfectly capable of making up my own mind and the determination of the truth based on it. Yeah, you're right, there definitely IS lots of stuff out there.  About 95% of everything is crap.


There is a lot of crap out there.  For example, the quote in the OP.  There is also a lot wisdom and hidden pearls if you look for them.  You are lucky in that you can find them easier than TJ could. You need to start with checking your own baggage at the door, stop deciding what is true or not based on your measly 30, 40, or 50 years of experience, and learn from the experience of the living Church through the lives of the saints who lived lives full of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and who are living proofs of Christ in the world.  Of course, if you cannot even accept the lives, witness, and teachings of the very writers of the New Testament, then you do not have the faith which Christ said is necessary in order to find Him and have Him enter your heart.  Humility means accepting the wisdom of others and wisdom means knowing who to accept as teachers of the faith.  TJ is not a mouthpiece for the truths regarding Christ above those within the Body of Christ, especially not above the Gospel writers and the fathers of the Church.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Your fault is that you put TJ's opinion and witness over the opinion and witness of the Apostles. You show yourself to be worse then a rookie.


 Of course I do. I know much more about TJ than I do about the Apostles. Don't you? I don't know apostles from Adam and neither do you. Who ARE the Apostles? What gives them any credibility? Who really wrote the books carrying their names? How do you know? Can you prove it? I can relate more to TJ than to the Apostles by about 1700 years. Can't you? With your opinion of my rookie status and 50 cents I can get a can of pop. Sorry to have pissed you off (not really). So please just forgive me.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> There is a lot of crap out there. For example, the quote in the OP. There is also a lot wisdom and hidden pearls if you look for them. You are lucky in that you can find them easier than TJ could. You need to start with checking your own baggage at the door, stop deciding what is true or not based on your measly 30, 40, or 50 years of experience, and learn from the experience of the living Church through the lives of the saints who lived lives full of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and who are living proofs of Christ in the world. Of course, if you cannot even accept the lives, witness, and teachings of the very writers of the New Testament, then you do not have the faith which Christ said is necessary in order to find Him and have Him enter your heart. Humility means accepting the wisdom of others and wisdom means knowing who to accept as teachers of the faith. TJ is not a mouthpiece for the truths regarding Christ above those within the Body of Christ, especially not above the Gospel writers and the fathers of the Church.


 Thank you Reverend TER, I'll take it under advisement. Have a good day.


*"It ain't so much the things we don't know that hurts us, as it is the things we do know that ain't true."*

----------


## TER

> Of course I do. I know much more about TJ than I do about the Apostles. Don't you? I don't know apostles from Adam and neither do you. Who ARE the Apostles? What gives them any credibility? Who really wrote the books carrying their names? How do you know? Can you prove it? I can relate more to TJ than to the Apostles by about 1700 years. Can't you? With your opinion of my rookie status and 50 cents I can get a can of pop. Sorry to have pissed you off (not really). So please just forgive me.


I was going to reply to your post because there is an opportunity for you to perhaps learn something, but your final two sentences just goes to demonstrate how utterly confused you are.  

You are sorry, but not really, so I should just forgive you.

  Is that the excuse you will give to Christ?  That you are sorry for doubting Him and His saints and spreading lies, but not really, so He should just forgive you?  I've had enough of this 'debate'. You are not interested in learning and I have other things to do.  Maybe someone else wishes to play these games.  Goodnight.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Do you have any reasons to believe what you said? If so, what are those reasons?


  Well it just seems logical and intuitively obvious, to me.  If I claim that the moon is made of green cheese.  I'd better have some ironclad rock solid evidence to back it up.  Otherwise it's probably just bull$#@!, or at a minimum, false and erroneous.  

Is that an answer to your question that you were looking for?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Of course I do. I know much more about TJ than I do about the Apostles. Don't you? I don't know apostles from Adam and neither do you. Who ARE the Apostles? What gives them any credibility? Who really wrote the books carrying their names? How do you know? Can you prove it? I can relate more to TJ than to the Apostles by about 1700 years. Can't you? With your opinion of my rookie status and 50 cents I can get a can of pop. Sorry to have pissed you off (not really). So please just forgive me.


The Orthodox Study Bible features introductions before each book (including the dutero canon) in the bible and addresses your questions here.  It also has many dozens of footnotes for further reading about the texts.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I was going to reply to your post because there is an opportunity for you to perhaps learn something, but your final two sentences just goes to demonstrate how utterly confused you are.
> 
> *How very condescending of you. My advice to you is for you to get over yourself.* 
> 
> You are sorry, but not really, so I should just forgive you. 
> 
> *It's a blow off line and a joke. You should forgive me because Jesus told you to.
> 
> *Is that the excuse you will give to Christ? That you are sorry for doubting Him and His saints and spreading lies, but not really, so He should just forgive you? I've had enough of this 'debate'. You are not interested in learning and I have other things to do. Maybe someone else wishes to play these games. Goodnight.
> ...


*"Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false." -- Bertrand Russell*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The Orthodox Study Bible features introductions before each book (including the dutero canon) in the bible and addresses your questions here. It also has many dozens of footnotes for further reading about the texts.


  Thanks! I think I'm looking for something else more physical and definitive.  It may not even exist.  How inconvenient?  Learned opinions are going for about 5 cents per truckload. But I'll keep it in mind.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Thanks! I think I'm looking for something else more physical and definitive.  It may not even exist.  How inconvenient?  Learned opinions are going for about 5 cents per truckload. But I'll keep it in mind.


y/w ~hugs~   I warn you-once you begin investigating the mysteries of the historic Church and Christianity generally, it will set you on the road for a lifetime of study and discovery.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If you were embarrassed, why would you carry on those teachings?
> 
> *Because you believe them and think they're right, might be one reason.
> 
> *And when required to die unless you recant your belief in Jesus, if you don't really even believe your own claims about him, why would you die?
> 
> *True believers are always dying, right and left. Nothing new there. No surprise.
> 
> *In your scenario Christianity could never have come into existence. The fact that it does exist is proof that the resurrection really happened.
> ...


//

----------


## Ronin Truth

> y/w ~hugs~  I warn you-once you begin investigating the mysteries of the historic Church and Christianity generally, it will set you on the road for a lifetime of study and discovery.


 Thanks, I consider myself warned. Actually I think I'm really much more interested and cut out for science. But there is definitely a very strong attraction for boat rocking, rattling cages and yanking chains.

----------


## AFPVet

Yeshua's love for us all trumps the condemnation that others feel.

----------


## acptulsa

> If you were embarrassed, why would you carry on those teachings?
> 
> And when required to die unless you recant your belief in Jesus, if you don't really even believe your own claims about him, why would you die?
> 
> In your scenario Christianity could never have come into existence. The fact that it does exist is proof that the resurrection really happened.


There you go underestimating those teachings again.

They _were_ revolutionary at the place and time, they _were_ exactly what the doctor ordered for that society, rumors of miracles off in Palestine could have gotten them attention initially but they could _only_ have taken the Roman Empire by storm on their own merits.

I don't think it wise to think so little of the meat and potatoes as you seem to do and be such a glutton for the dessert.  Your call, but I'm just sayin'.  What if Heaven is a place for those who can make it Heaven?  If so, is there room there for someone whose idea of a Red Badge of Moral Courage is a negative rep, and who passes them out like candy?  Would _you_ want to spend eternity with someone who couldn't outgrow that sort of thing?

God has grace enough to forgive us our childish sins, but who wants to forgive some stubborn brat over and over again for all eternity?  Seems to me that to count on that is to build on shifting sands, to me.  Also seems I picked that up from the only man wise as God, so it just might be true, too...

To convince yourself your salvation doesn't require you lift a finger, ignore Jesus' lessons to the point that you don't even know what or why you should build on bedrock (even though God considered them important enough to endure hunger, gas, acne and crucifixion to deliver those lessons to us), then spend eighteen hours a day combing Paul's less perfect wordsmanship for confirmation you're doing it right seems like a foolish approach to me.  Ronin Truth seems to have more respect for Jesus.  He might not be too sure of His divinity, but at least he doesn't discard all His brilliant teachings, delivered at such cost, with an 'oh, gee, red letters...'

Yeah, only God's grace can get us past our childish sins and give us a chance to be fit for Heaven.  So bury your talents and see what it gets you.

I'm ready for my negrep now.  In case I never told you, I wear your red badges of moral courage with an almost sinful pride.

----------


## erowe1

> Well it just seems logical and intuitively obvious, to me.  If I claim that the moon is made of green cheese.  I'd better have some ironclad rock solid evidence to back it up.  Otherwise it's probably just bull$#@!, or at a minimum, false and erroneous.  
> 
> Is that an answer to your question that you were looking for?


I'm still waiting for your answer to my question. Do you base your claim on any reasons?

Nobody said anything about the Moon being made of green cheese, which is provably false. The claim in question is that Jesus rose from the dead, for which there is overwhelming evidence. You claim that there is not. Do you have a reason to say that? Or did you just make that up?

----------


## erowe1

> There you go underestimating those teachings again.
> 
> They _were_ revolutionary at the place and time, they _were_ exactly what the doctor ordered for that society, rumors of miracles off in Palestine could have gotten them attention initially but they could _only_ have taken the Roman Empire by storm on their own merits.
> 
> I don't think it wise to think so little of the meat and potatoes as you seem to do and be such a glutton for the dessert.  Your call, but I'm just sayin'.  What if Heaven is a place for those who can make it Heaven?  If so, is there room there for someone whose idea of a Red Badge of Moral Courage is a negative rep, and who passes them out like candy?  Would _you_ want to spend eternity with someone who couldn't outgrow that sort of thing?
> 
> God has grace enough to forgive us our childish sins, but who wants to forgive some stubborn brat over and over again for all eternity?  Seems to me that to count on that is to build on shifting sands, to me.  Also seems I picked that up from the only man wise as God, so it just might be true, too...
> 
> To convince yourself your salvation doesn't require you lift a finger, ignore Jesus' lessons to the point that you don't even know what or why you should build on bedrock (even though God considered them important enough to endure hunger, gas, acne and crucifixion to deliver those lessons to us), then spend eighteen hours a day combing Paul's less perfect wordsmanship for confirmation you're doing it right seems like a foolish approach to me.  Ronin Truth seems to have more respect for Jesus.  He might not be too sure of His divinity, but at least he doesn't discard all His brilliant teachings, delivered at such cost, with an 'oh, gee, red letters...'
> ...


I don't see how I underestimated any teachings, or how anything you say here is a response to what you quoted me saying.

Do you disagree with something I said?

----------


## erowe1

> //


You're contradicting yourself. You say "because you believe them." But the very premise of what you said is that the so-called believer actually knows that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, and merely pretends otherwise, and then goes on to die for the belief that Jesus did rise from the dead, even when they don't actually believe he did.

If it were merely some set of ethical dictums that were important, and not the person of Jesus Christ himself, then they could just pass on those ethical dictums as valid on their own right, regardless of who first taught them, without worrying about whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. That alternate reality version of Christianity could have been a philosophical school like stoicism. But that's not what Christianity ever has been, nor what the movement surrounding Jesus was even while he was walking the earth. Christianity, right from the very beginning, has always revolved around the question of who Jesus is. The ethical teachings are only important in the light of that.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It is because you misunderstand how Christ saves us that you ask these questions. He has not left us. He is in the heart of all those who confess Him Lord and Savior. Where the Holy Spirit, so there is the Son and the Father. His ascension into Heaven is for our benefit, that our human nature might be at the right hand of the Father, so that we might enter into union with Him through the Holy Spirit of God. And out of His great love and mercy, He allows this world which rejects Him to have more time for repentance and to come to Him, so that the Kingdom may be full of those who share in His love which is the light and the life of the world.


 Amen and hallelujah! 

Why am I hearing the teacher's voice from Peanuts?

*"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan! The proper study of mankind is Man."*

----------


## acptulsa

Do I disagree with something you said?




> ...and not just some moral teachings.


Just some random moral teachings, are they?  You don't think I should disagree with that?




> 52Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm ready for my negrep now.  In case I never told you, I wear your red badges of moral courage with an almost sinful pride.


What are you talking about?

Did I ever neg rep you? If so, then if you're going to advertise that, please tell us all what it was for, so that it doesn't look like you're saying I ever neg repped you just for saying something I disagreed with.

----------


## erowe1

> Do I disagree with something you said?
> 
> 
> 
> Just some random moral teachings, are they?  You don't think I should disagree with that?


Could you please be specific? Did you disagree with something I said? If so, what?

----------


## acptulsa

> What are you talking about?


Been there, quoted that, don't feel repetitive this morning.




> Did I ever neg rep you?


Of course you have.  What makes me any different from anyone else on this forum?

----------


## erowe1

> Been there, quoted that, don't feel repetitive this morning.


That's a lie.




> Of course you have.  What makes me any different from anyone else on this forum?


Nothing. I've never neg-repped anyone for disagreeing with me. If I neg-repped you or anyone else it was either for lying about me, saying something profane or unnecessarily insulting, or racism.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm still waiting for your answer to my question. Do you base your claim on any reasons?
> 
> Nobody said anything about the Moon being made of green cheese, which is provably false. The claim in question is that Jesus rose from the dead, for which there is overwhelming evidence. You claim that there is not. Do you have a reason to say that? Or did you just make that up?


 Now I may get you. Thanks. The moon thing was an attempt to answer your question example of why? Overwhelming evidence? You keep saying that but never quite seem to actually produce it. It makes me think that the moon is made of something else. I guess my reason for saying that is that I have reached an age where my tolerance for institutional BS and their apologists is just only about a micron high now.

----------


## erowe1

> Now I may get you. Thanks. The moon thing was an attempt to answer your question example of why? Overwhelming evidence? You keep saying that but never quite seem to actually produce it. It makes me think that the moon is made of something else. I guess my reason for saying that is that I have reached an age where my tolerance for institutional BS and their apologists is just only about a micron high now.


You keep saying that there does not exist any evidence that Jesus rose again but never quite seem to give a reason for why you believe that.

Do you have a reason?

By your own admission you have note investigated, and refuse to investigate, any of the many presentations and evaluations of the evidence that are readily available. If you really want to be in a position to say there is no such evidence, don't you think you should do that first?

I have presented evidence in this thread which you've waved away with non sequiturs. Like TJ and Franklin, you want to claim to be interested in evidence, but your behavior shows that you are more interested in reaching a certain conclusion.

----------


## acptulsa

> That's a lie.


No, it isn't.

If you want to belittle the lessons of Jesus, do it.  That's your own soul.  But don't try to preach to others that they don't need to listen to Jesus to earn eternity.  That's a violation of the non-aggression principle.




> I guess my reason for saying that is that I have reached an age where my tolerance for institutional BS and their apologists is just only about a micron high now.


And to get a crawful of 'I didn't take the trouble to read and understand you so you're lying' at this hour doesn't help.

----------


## erowe1

> No, it isn't.


Yes it is. Or else prove it.




> If you want to belittle the lessons of Jesus, do it.  That's your own soul.  But don't try to preach to others that they don't need to listen to Jesus to earn eternity.  That's a violation of the non-aggression principle.


I have never done any such thing. If you think I have, show me the quote. If you can't, then this would be an example of the kind of lie that I might give a neg rep for. I take offense to being accused of something like this. If I neg repped you in the past, I expect that you will find it was for something similar.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You keep saying that there does not exist any evidence that Jesus rose again but never quite seem to give a reason for why you believe that.
> *
> As in other things, no evidence is a very valid reason for disbelief.
> 
> *Do you have a reason?
> 
> *Yep, how many more do you require?
> 
> *By your own admission you have note investigated, and refuse to investigate, any of the many presentations and evaluations of the evidence that are readily available. If you really want to be in a position to say there is no such evidence, don't you think you should do that first?
> ...


*"Men and nations act wisely, only AFTER they have exhausted all of the other alternatives."*

----------


## erowe1

> *"Men and nations act wisely, only AFTER they have exhausted all of the other alternatives."*


You claim to have reasons for your claim that there is no evidence for the resurrection. But I've asked you so many times for your reasons, and you still refuse to present any.

At least you finally got around to saying you have some. But I highly doubt that. 

Feel free to place the burden of proof on the affirmative. The affirmative has carried that burden successfully. And by your own admission you refuse to listen to them. How can you then turn around and claim that there is no evidence, when you admit that you refuse to examine it?

----------


## acptulsa

> As in other things, no evidence is a very valid reason for disbelief.


He gave you proof that no man is anywhere near wise enough to talk like Jesus.  And since you're wise enough to actually pay attention to what Jesus said, instead of just being, like, 'Oh, gee, the red letters, that's the boring part,' you should be in a position to recognize that, to your credit.

Does that count for something?  Because it seems pretty convincing to me.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You claim to have reasons for your claim that there is no evidence for the resurrection. But I've asked you so many times for your reasons, and you still refuse to present any.
> 
> At least you finally got around to saying you have some. But I highly doubt that. 
> 
> Feel free to place the burden of proof on the affirmative. The affirmative has carried that burden successfully. And by your own admission you refuse to listen to them. How can you then turn around and claim that there is no evidence, when you admit that you refuse to examine it?


Extraordinary evidence thread post #s please.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> He gave you proof that no man is anywhere near wise enough to talk like Jesus. And since you're wise enough to actually pay attention to what Jesus said, instead of just being, like, 'Oh, gee, the red letters, that's the boring part,' you should be in a position to recognize that, to your credit.
> 
> Does that count for something? Because it seems pretty convincing to me.


  The question is about the truth of Jesus' resurrection or have I just had another senior moment and missed something?

----------


## acptulsa

> The question is about the truth of Jesus' resurrection or have I just had another senior moment and missed something?


I was actually talking about His divinity, but you know.  It's all good.  I'm tired as hell of this thread for some reason anyway.

The miracles got the message the attention it deserved.  That's what counts.  You read the lessons, so you're doing the main part right.  I'm not particularly worried about you.

Carry on.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I was actually talking about His divinity, but you know. It's all good. I'm tired as hell of this thread for some reason anyway.
> 
> The miracles got the message the attention it deserved. That's what counts. You read the lessons, so you're doing the main part right. I'm not particularly worried about you.
> 
> Carry on.


 Well I guess the divinity of Jesus also constitutes another extrordinary claim that calls for a pass through Occam's razor and Sagan's dictum.

Thanks for your help. Carrying on.

----------


## acptulsa

Father:  'Look both ways before you cross that street.'

Daughter:  'You always forgive me for not listening to you, so I never listen to you.  What's that screeching noi--'

*WHAM*

Bystander:  'Well, I don't call you father, but _I_ thought your advice was sound and listened to it...'

Some days I feel real pity for God.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Father: 'Look both ways before you cross that street.'
> 
> Daughter: 'You always forgive me for not listening to you, so I never listen to you. What's that screeching noi--'
> 
> *WHAM*
> 
> Bystander: 'Well, I don't call you father, but _I_ thought your advice was sound and listened to it...'
> 
> Some days I feel real pity for God.


  Perhaps we just should have been created better.  (Hmmm. another thread topic)

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Extraordinary evidence thread post #s please.


  Hark ........ crickets.

----------


## erowe1

> Hark ........ crickets.


I haven't been online. 66, 82, 83, 85, 95, 97, 119. You have not offered any counterevidence.

And if you really want to take this seriously, you are aware, I'm sure that serious critical evaluation of evidence concerning historical matters requires more details than can be given in a forum post. As you are also aware, there are a multitude of books that present and critically evaluate the evidence for the resurrection. By your own admission, you refuse to consider that evidence.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I haven't been online. 66, 82, 83, 85, 95, 97, 119. You have not offered any counterevidence.
> 
> And if you really want to take this seriously, you are aware, I'm sure that serious critical evaluation of evidence concerning historical matters requires more details than can be given in a forum post. As you are also aware, there are a multitude of books that present and critically evaluate the evidence for the resurrection. By your own admission, you refuse to consider that evidence.


 Just been waiting, somewhat impatiently, for your extraordinary evidence post #'s to be produced. Are you done? Is that it?


Extraordinary evidence [for those last claims too if you don't mind too much] thread post #s please.

----------


## erowe1

> Just been waiting, somewhat impatiently, for your extraordinary evidence post #'s to be produced. Are you done? Is that it?
> 
> 
> Extraordinary evidence [for those last claims too if you don't mind too much] thread post #s please.


Those are the numbers.

The question is, are you even willing to look into that evidence and evaluate it? You seem to have been saying that you are not willing. And it is in light of that unwillingness that your own claim that no such evidence exists betrays your self-deception.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I haven't been online. 66, 82, 83, 85, 95, 97, 119. You have not offered any counterevidence.
> 
> And if you really want to take this seriously, you are aware, I'm sure that serious critical evaluation of evidence concerning historical matters requires more details than can be given in a forum post. As you are also aware, there are a multitude of books that present and critically evaluate the evidence for the resurrection. By your own admission, you refuse to consider that evidence.


*#66
*


> Have you ever looked? Have you ever read any of the numerous books that present and critically evaluate the evidence, of which there is plenty?
> 
> Christianity owes its entire existence to the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. It is, and always has been, going back to the very beginning of the movement in the 30's AD, centered on the claim of the historicity of that event, and not just some moral teachings. There were numerous eye witnesses of Jesus after his resurrection, who were convinced enough of the reality of it that they were willing to die rather than recant their claims about what they had seen and touched with their own eyes and hands.


 *Nope, sorry, just you talking and sharing your opinion. NOT EVIDENCE 

#82
*


> What about the Christianity that already existed before Paul believed it? The faith that he shared with Jesus's own brothers and his original disciples?


 *Nope, sorry, just you asking two questions? NOT EVIDENCE

#85
*


> No. They're totally different. We have no evidence that Hercules existed at all. We have overwhelming evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Christianity itself owes its existence to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.


 *Nope, sorry, just you talking and sharing your opinion AGAIN. STILL NOT EVIDENCE 

#95
*


> If you were embarrassed, why would you carry on those teachings?
> 
> And when required to die unless you recant your belief in Jesus, if you don't really even believe your own claims about him, why would you die?
> 
> In your scenario Christianity could never have come into existence. The fact that it does exist is proof that the resurrection really happened.


*Just your review of my post quote plus questions, answered in my post #113. Questions ain't evidence either.

#97
*


> The main ones are most of the books that Christians typically regard as the books of the New Testament.


 *A pointer to some marginal and questionable evidence at last. Not even addressed to me. And in no way extraordinary, let alone compelling.

#119
*


> You're contradicting yourself. You say "because you believe them." But the very premise of what you said is that the so-called believer actually knows that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, and merely pretends otherwise, and then goes on to die for the belief that Jesus did rise from the dead, even when they don't actually believe he did.
> 
> If it were merely some set of ethical dictums that were important, and not the person of Jesus Christ himself, then they could just pass on those ethical dictums as valid on their own right, regardless of who first taught them, without worrying about whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. That alternate reality version of Christianity could have been a philosophical school like stoicism. But that's not what Christianity ever has been, nor what the movement surrounding Jesus was even while he was walking the earth. Christianity, right from the very beginning, has always revolved around the question of who Jesus is. The ethical teachings are only important in the light of that.


 *I have no idea what that really is, nor it's relevance. Pretty sure it's only just your opinion again. NO EVIDENCE


I think that I've figured out what the problem is. You have absolutely NO CLUE what constitutes valid evidence. 

So CLUELESS just try this out: HINT: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=t

*

----------


## Ronin Truth

Hark ........ crickets.

----------


## Crashland

> Have you ever looked? Have you ever read any of the numerous books that present and critically evaluate the evidence, of which there is plenty?
> 
> Christianity owes its entire existence to the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. It is, and always has been, going back to the very beginning of the movement in the 30's AD, centered on the claim of the historicity of that event, and not just some moral teachings. There were numerous eye witnesses of Jesus after his resurrection, who were convinced enough of the reality of it that they were willing to die rather than recant their claims about what they had seen and touched with their own eyes and hands.


This is an argument I hear from Christians all the time. If ancient "eyewitnesses", and people who are so devoted as to become martyrs are so credible, then why should I accept as evidence your religion's eyewitnesses and martyrs *and yet not accept as evidence the eyewitnesses and martyrs that countless other religions claim?*

----------


## TER

> This is an argument I hear from Christians all the time. If ancient "eyewitnesses", and people who are so devoted as to become martyrs are so credible, then why should I accept as evidence your religion's eyewitnesses and martyrs *and yet not accept as evidence the eyewitnesses and martyrs that countless other religions claim?*


When a Muslim blows himself up with a bunch of bystanders in a bus thinking he will gain entrance into Heaven, I am totally convinced he believes that he will do so (of course, that doesn't mean he will enter).  Likewise, when the Apostles gave up their lives to confess that they beheld Jesus Christ resurrected from the grave, I believe that they really believed they saw Him raised from the dead.  You might say that they were fooled  or perhaps Jesus had a twin brother who was on the cross instead of Him and what they saw was a lie.  Nevertheless, that they believed that they did behold Him risen from the dead is evidenced by the fact that they gave the greatest proof they could, that is, with their very lives.

----------


## TER

> He gave you proof that no man is anywhere near wise enough to talk like Jesus.  And since you're wise enough to actually pay attention to what Jesus said, instead of just being, like, 'Oh, gee, the red letters, that's the boring part,' you should be in a position to recognize that, to your credit.
> 
> Does that count for something?  Because it seems pretty convincing to me.


I am not sure why you are attacking erowe in this thread.  He has said nothing against the life-giving moral teachings of Christ or implied that those part are the 'boring parts'. He is simply defending the fact that Christ gave the greatest teaching ever revealed to man _and_ demonstrated those teachings to be true (even though the world naturally hates it and rejects it) by showing Himself both in word and in deed to be the living and incarnate Lord of creation.  Had He merely spoken such great moral teachings, we would have hardly known about Him and the people would have simply considered Him mad for claiming to be the Son of God and the I Am before time and creation.  What gave power and proof to His authority started for sure with His teachings and His claims, but it was His great miracles and His resurrection which sealed them in the hearts and convictions of those early followers who also in turn followed Him and gave up their lives to proclaim Him Lord and God.  It was the manifestation of the Holy Spirit active in the world.

 There is a reason why God performed His miracles and why when He sent out the seventy He gave them power to heal and to exorcize demons, because people are fickle and corrupted, and words alone, even if they were from the mouth of God and filled with eternal truths, most times is not enough to convince them.  On account of the weakness of men did He perform these deeds so that those stubborn doubters might at least believe with their eyes since their hearts were so darkened.

----------


## Crashland

> When a Muslim blows himself up with a bunch of bystanders in a bus thinking he will gain entrance into Heaven, I am totally convinced he believes that he will do so (of course, that doesn't mean he will enter).  Likewise, when the Apostles gave up their lives to confess that they beheld Jesus Christ resurrected from the grave, I believe that they really believed they saw Him raised from the dead.  You might say that they were fooled  or perhaps Jesus had a twin brother who was on the cross instead of Him and what they saw was a lie.  Nevertheless, that they believed that they did behold Him risen from the dead is evidenced by the fact that they gave the greatest proof they could, that is, with their very lives.


So...you want me to treat this as evidence that any religion is true which claims to have "eyewitnesses" to its own described events, and who were also martyrs?

Christianity isn't the only religion that claims that it has martyrs who were eyewitnesses...

----------


## acptulsa

> I am not sure why you are attacking erowe in this thread.  He has said nothing against the life-giving moral teachings of Christ or implied that those part are the 'boring parts'.


He said there was nothing novel about Jesus' 'moral code', he said that was not the reason God took on human form, he generally downplayed what Jesus took up all of the seventh chapter of Matthew telling us about our chances of gaining eternity without listening to the lessons of the one the disciples called Teacher, and my quoting the entirety of Matthew 7 and pointing out that this 'not novel' moral code brought down the Roman Empire left him spectacularly unfazed.

Why should I sit here and let someone turn people--people _I_, for one, actually _like_--away from the keys to Heaven's gate?  Why should I do that?  Just because he figures it doesn't matter, they're preselected so to hell with them in (of all people) _Jesus' name_?

So he doesn't believe we are capable of participating in any way in our own salvation.  Does that mean he should go around telling people to ignore what Jesus taught?  Having decided not to enter, must he prevent others from entering as well?

If what Jesus did is important, then it's important.  If Jesus deserves credit, then give Him credit.  If the moral code was given us by Jesus, then let us have it.  Is this too much to ask?

----------


## TER

> So...you want me to treat this as evidence that any religion is true which claims to have "eyewitnesses" to its own described events, and who were also martyrs?
> 
> Christianity isn't the only religion that claims that it has martyrs who were eyewitnesses...


Not too many religions have martyrs who were eyewitnesses of a person who fulfilled an impossible amount of prophecies, was born of a virgin, performed many miracles, lived a perfect life of sinlessness and perfect obedience to God, claimed to be God Himself, and then rised up from the dead to save mankind and send them the Holy Spirit of God.  And by doing so, many of those same eyewitnesses themselves became full of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and in turn performed miracles to the glory of God, converting entire nations by their words and their deeds.  You can chose what you want to believe or not to believe.  You would do better and choose Christ.

----------


## TER

> He said there was nothing novel about Jesus' 'moral code', he said that was not the reason God took on human form, he generally downplayed what Jesus took up all of the seventh chapter of Matthew telling us about our chances of gaining eternity without listening to the lessons of the one the disciples called Teacher, and my quoting the entirety of Matthew 7 and pointing out that this 'not novel' moral code brought down the Roman Empire left him spectacularly unfazed.
> 
> Why should I sit here and let someone turn people--people _I_, for one, actually _like_--away from the keys to Heaven's gate?  Why should I do that?  Just because he figures it doesn't matter, they're preselected so to hell with them in (of all people) _Jesus' name_?
> 
> So he doesn't believe we are capable of participating in any way in our own salvation.  Does that mean he should go around telling people to ignore what Jesus taught?  Having decided not to enter, must he prevent others from entering as well?


I don't know, maybe I didn't take his posts that way.  Christ gave revolutionary teachings (for example, even the Jews who were the chosen people of God could not accept this notion of love your enemies and forgive those who persecute you). What Jesus taught, the divine teachings which grant us the blessings and mercy of God, are of course unparalleled and true in all respects.  My point is that those teachings cannot be divorced from the reality that God showed His authority and the truth of His teachings via the wonders and miracles, not because His teachings were lacking in any way, but because of the hardness and weakness of men.  This idea that Christ was a great teacher yet a mere man which some (not you) ascribe to does little to bring people to God, whether in Jerusalem 2000 years or today.  Not to say that it does nothing of course.  But unless we first accept that He is Lord and God and Creator of all things, and that we are to follow His commandments because only by following them will we too rise into eternal life and not eternal judgement, then we may like His moral teachings for this occasion or for that, but when it comes to all occasions, especially the most difficult ones, we might easily revert to 'well, He was just a man' and make Him something in the periphery when He should at all times be in the center.  Christ saves us not by His teachings alone, but by His very body and His very blood and His very being.  Through His resurrected flesh our flesh too will rise.  By His ascension into Heaven, we too will follow.

----------


## Crashland

> Not too many religions have martyrs who were eyewitnesses of a person who fulfilled an impossible amount of prophecies, was born of a virgin, performed many miracles, lived a perfect life of sinlessness and perfect obedience to God, claimed to be God Himself, and then rised up from the dead to save mankind and send them the Holy Spirit of God.  And by doing so, many of those same eyewitnesses themselves became full of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and in turn performed miracles to the glory of God, converting entire nations by their words and their deeds.  You can chose what you want to believe or not to believe.  You would do better and choose Christ.


You are right, not too many religions claim to have martyrs who were eyewitnesses of all those things you said. But there are plenty of religions that claim to have martyrs who were eyewitnesses of a whole lot of *other* things which are just as important to that particular religion, as the stuff you mentioned is to Christianity.

Also, converting entire nations to a particular religion isn't anything particularly miraculous. It has happened many times in human history and it isn't always Christianity. And usually it happens by force, not by words. That includes Christianity.

----------


## acptulsa

Perhaps, TER.  But when an agnostic finds that His wisdom is the one thing to grasp onto, the one thing of true value, does one cultivate that?  Or does one say, no, that's not the important part at all, no matter how you value it, yer doin' it wrong!

I'm tired of fundys driving people away from the Word that way.  Gets irritating.  What was Jesus referring to when he said, woe to ye Pharisees, ye lawyers!  For, holding the keys to the kingdom, you neither enter nor allow others to enter?

When I successfully plant a seed, I do not want to see it dug up.

----------


## TER

> You are right, not too many religions claim to have martyrs who were eyewitnesses of all those things you said. But there are plenty of religions that claim to have martyrs who were eyewitnesses of a whole lot of *other* things which are just as important to that particular religion, as the stuff you mentioned is to Christianity.
> 
> Also, converting entire nations to a particular religion isn't anything particularly miraculous. It has happened many times in human history and it isn't always Christianity. And usually it happens by force, not by words. That includes Christianity.


Which religion has a person who claimed to be God, to have fulfilled an impossible amount of prophecies, to have taught the teachings Jesus Christ taught, to have worked as many miracles and to rise from the dead promising the salvation of our complete being, flesh and all?  If you find one, let me know.  Until then, Christ alone is worthy for worship.

----------


## TER

> Perhaps, TER.  But when an agnostic finds that His wisdom is the one thing to grasp onto, the one thing of true value, does one cultivate that?  Or does one say, no, that's not the important part at all, no matter how you value it, yer doin' it wrong!
> 
> I'm tired of fundys driving people away from the Word that way.  Gets irritating.  What was Jesus referring to when he said, woe to ye Pharisees, ye lawyers!  For, holding the keys to the kingdom, you neither enter nor allow others to enter?


I agree with you that with each individual person, there is a differ approach.  These are pastoral issues, and if someone wants to find good guidance, then they should speak privately with those who have spiritual knowledge, and confess with them.  This is the greatest way and is one of the reasons why Christ established a priesthood and holy orders, for the benefit of men.  But when speaking generically on a discussion forum when certain misrepresentations are being offered by some which are leading others away from the truth, and these some are allowed to do so with no consequences so as to not shake them as we patiently wait for them to come around,  there eventually comes a point when lies must be confronted and heresy be contended.  Not to attack, but to defend those who may be reading, and even to assist those who are spreading the lies.  As good people, we should give a chance for the other hearers, those bystanders, to hear the facts, so that they might make the wiser decision.  Erowe's point was that, I think, but I don't want to speak for him.  

We must forget that what brought fear to those in high powers and authority and which ultimately led to repentance was not that Christ said 'love your enemies', but rather, when He said 'those who have done evil and denied me before the Father, I too will deny them'. There is wine and there is medicine, both may sometimes be bitter.  It is good enough for us to pray for one another and when the time arises, defend the truth for the benefit of those around us.

----------


## acptulsa

I do not consider it true that there are things more important to the salvation of a person's soul than the purity of Jesus' teachings.  I think Scripture bears this out.  Sure, forgiveness is absolutely necessary, and it's also important that people not say, I have already sinned, it's too late for me to become human.  But Jesus wasn't just talking to hear himself talk.  You know that.

Is that more important than that Lazarus lived a few more years than he would have lived otherwise, or isn't it?

I was finding points of agreement with someone who is keeping his back to God.  Then someone comes in and starts arguing--over where a tent revival two thousand years ago got their wine, of all things.  I feel I have the right to be irritated and try to pry a Pharisee head out of a Pharisee ass.  Sorry, but I will reserve that right.

You don't teach someone to appreciate classical music by telling them they're wrong to for not preferring C major to D minor.  You give them a modicum of respect instead, and work with it.  And if you can't, you show a little faith and you shut up before you ***** the pitch of someone who, by the Grace of God, _can_ do it.




> 'Every man’s religion is good. There is none of it bad. We are all trying to arrive at the same place according to our own conscience and teachings. It don’t matter which road you take.'--_Will Rogers_


To say otherwise is arrogant.

It takes thoughtfulness and discretion to distinguish between 'That's not the way I do it' and 'That's wrong.'  Maybe if some people would spend less time overlooking those dreaded red letters they would learn this, because Jesus did teach it.  And He did a Divine job of it--much better than Peter could ever have hoped to do.

----------


## Crashland

> Which religion has a person who claimed to be God, to have fulfilled an impossible amount of prophecies, to have taught the teachings Jesus Christ taught, to have worked as many miracles and to rise from the dead promising the salvation of our complete being, flesh and all?  If you find one, let me know.  Until then, Christ alone is worthy for worship.


The claim to be God and the promise of salvation is a very nice story but that is not a reason to believe it is true. Miracles and prophecies, on the other hand, are a little bit more relevant. If any particular religion could actually demonstrate that miracles or supernatural occurrences happen then that would do quite a lot. Instead, all we have is many different religions, many of which claiming that miracles have happened which is supposed to be evidence for that religion. It is the same with prophecies. If you are not familiar with prophecies in other world religions then chalk that up to ignorance. Even with a simple google search and you can find plenty of information. Don't forget to research past religions as well, like greek mythology. The common theme you will find is that religious prophecies are either vague, self-fulfilling, obvious (like predicting that there will be wars and earthquakes and famines), or are interpreted after the fact to be considered "fulfilled". Find any ancient prophecy from any religion. Then ask a religious leader in that religion about it. They will tell you all you want to know about it, and they will sound exactly like your Christian apologists.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The claim to be God and the promise of salvation is a very nice story but that is not a reason to believe it is true. Miracles and prophecies, on the other hand, are a little bit more relevant. If any particular religion could actually demonstrate that miracles or supernatural occurrences happen then that would do quite a lot. Instead, all we have is many different religions, many of which claiming that miracles have happened which is supposed to be evidence for that religion. It is the same with prophecies. If you are not familiar with prophecies in other world religions then chalk that up to ignorance. Even with a simple google search and you can find plenty of information. Don't forget to research past religions as well, like greek mythology. *The common theme you will find is that religious prophecies are either vague, self-fulfilling, obvious (like predicting that there will be wars and earthquakes and famines), or are interpreted after the fact to be considered "fulfilled".* Find any ancient prophecy from any religion. Then ask a religious leader in that religion about it. They will tell you all you want to know about it, and they will sound exactly like your Christian apologists.


This is not true WRT Jesus.  He not only fulfilled messianic prophecy, he _said_ he did.  I suggest you take your own advice about googling.

----------


## acptulsa

Here we have a tough sell.

Crashland, my friend.  Tell me, if you would be so kind.  The miracles have not continued.  Have you read Jesus' parables much?

If so, would you trade them for a magic show that would make Copperfield, Penn and Teller, and their whole crowd blush?  Or are the lessons of Jesus more worthy to continue to influence generations than the world's most amazing magic show would be?

Because somebody seems to be confused on this point...

To hell with the baby!  The bathwater just turned to wine!!!

----------


## Crashland

> This is not true WRT Jesus.  He not only fulfilled messianic prophecy, he _said_ he did.  I suggest you take your own advice about googling.


Why does it matter whether he says he did, or if someone else says he did? Are you saying Jesus is the only figure who has claimed to fulfill a previous prophecy himself?

----------


## TER

> Here we have a tough sell.
> 
> Crashland, my friend.  Tell me, if you would be so kind.  The miracles have not continued.  Have you read Jesus' parables much?
> 
> If so, would you trade them for a magic show that would make Copperfield, Penn and Teller, and their whole crowd blush?  Or are the lessons of Jesus more worthy to continue to influence generations than the world's most amazing magic show would be?
> 
> Because somebody seems to be confused on this point...
> 
> To hell with the baby!  The bathwater just turned to wine!!!


The miracles have not continued?  Says who?

----------


## Crashland

> Here we have a tough sell.
> 
> Crashland, my friend.  Tell me, if you would be so kind.  The miracles have not continued.  Have you read Jesus' parables much?


Yes, I have read the entire Bible.




> If so, would you trade them for a magic show that would make Copperfield, Penn and Teller, and their whole crowd blush?  Or are the lessons of Jesus more worthy to continue to influence generations than the world's most amazing magic show would be?
> 
> Because somebody seems to be confused on this point...
> 
> To hell with the baby!  The bathwater just turned to wine!!!


Buddhism and Hinduism also influence the generations more than the world's most amazing magic show. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The degree to which a religion has influenced the world does not say anything about the truth of its claims. There needs to be something to substantiate the claims for me to believe they are true.

----------


## TER

> I do not consider it true that there are things more important to the salvation of a person's soul than the purity of Jesus' teachings.  I think Scripture bears this out.  Sure, forgiveness is absolutely necessary, and it's also important that people not say, I have already sinned, it's too late for me to become human.  But Jesus wasn't just talking to hear himself talk.  You know that.
> 
> Is that more important than that Lazarus lived a few more years than he would have lived otherwise, or isn't it?
> 
> I was finding points of agreement with someone who is keeping his back to God.  Then someone comes in and starts arguing--over where a tent revival two thousand years ago got their wine, of all things.  I feel I have the right to be irritated and try to pry a Pharisee head out of a Pharisee ass.  Sorry, but I will reserve that right.
> 
> You don't teach someone to appreciate classical music by telling them they're wrong to for not preferring C major to D minor.  You give them a modicum of respect instead, and work with it.  And if you can't, you show a little faith and you shut up before you ***** the pitch of someone who, by the Grace of God, _can_ do it.
> 
> 
> ...


Your anti-Catholic bigotry seems to litter your posting, but I may be wrong.  St. Peter, by the way, was a much greater Christian than you, or do you contend that?  And He went around proclaiming Christ is the awaited Messiah and has risen from the dead.  After you read the red print, read some of the other print, particularly in his preaching on the day of Pentecost when He evangelized to the people of Jerusalem about Christ.  Read that section in Acts and tell me what he should have said, because I don't recall much of it was with regards to Christ's moral teachings but rather who Jesus is and what He has done for mankind.  In addition, Peter also believed in the real Body and real Blood in the Holy Eucharist.  Was he stupidly caught up in something peripheral here?  Are you going to accuse the Apostles of arrogance when they taught to withhold the Holy Eucharist from those not baptized and members in one faith and one mind and one communion?  Should Christ elected you above Peter since apparently these things to you are magic and fairy tales?  Why is it that you disbelieve those things that the Apostles gave their lives defending?

----------


## TER

> Yes, I have read the entire Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Buddhism and Hinduism also influence the generations more than the world's most amazing magic show. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The degree to which a religion has influenced the world does not say anything about the truth of its claims. There needs to be something to substantiate the claims for me to believe they are true.


The substantiate claims are the saints themselves.  These are the living proofs.  Miracles seldom if ever occur in order to strengthen faith, but rather occur _on account_ of faith, and the lives of the saints are filled with proofs of the Holy Spirit of God working in our world and His presence.  Study the saints of a faith to learn about the religion, and no religion has the saints of the Christian Church.  I challenge you to find one that even comes close.

----------


## Crashland

> The substantiate claims are the saints themselves.  These are the living proofs.  Miracles seldom if ever occur in order to strengthen faith, but rather occur _on account_ of faith, and the lives of the saints are filled with proofs of the Holy Spirit of God working in our world and His presence.  Study the saints of a faith to learn about the religion, and no religion has the saints of the Christian Church.  I challenge you to find one that even comes close.


How are the lives of the saints filled with proofs of the Holy Spirit of God working in our world? Maybe just pick one example and explain. I come from a protestant background so I am not sure where you are going with that.

----------


## TER

> How are the lives of the saints filled with proofs of the Holy Spirit of God working in our world? Maybe just pick one example and explain. I come from a protestant background so I am not sure where you are going with that.


St. Peter raised the dead.  This is one example.

----------


## Crashland

> St. Peter raised the dead.  He is one example.


The only source for that information is the Bible, which is what we are trying to substantiate.

----------


## TER

> The only source for that information is the Bible, which is what we are trying to substantiate.


You wanted one, so I gave you one you might be familiar with.  Yet St. Paul was neither the first nor the last.  The Holy Spirit did not disappear when the last page of Acts was written.  There have been many saints down the centuries who lived godly lives in righteousness and purity who have raised the dead by their prayers to God and the grace of the Holy Spirit.  The hagiography of the Church is thousands of pages long, stretching from the beginning until now, and filled with obvious proofs of God's divine hand within the world through these living temples of the Holy Spirit.  These are living proofs of God's presence in the world.

----------


## Crashland

> You wanted one, so I gave you one you might be familiar with.  Yet St. Paul was neither the first nor the last.  The Holy Spirit did not disappear when the last page of Acts was written.  There have been many saints down the centuries who have raised the dead by their prayers to God and the grace of the Holy Spirit.  The hagiography of the Church is thousands of pages long, stretching from the beginning until now, and filled with obvious proofs of God's divine hand within the world through these living temples of the Holy Spirit.  These are living proofs of God's presence in the world.


This is supposed to be obvious? I don't find that the Christian church saying "our saints have raised the dead, just take our word for it" is particularly compelling.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is supposed to be obvious? *I don't find that the Christian church saying "our saints have raised the dead, just take our word for it" is particularly compelling.*


Then you won't find much history at all compelling.  History tends to be a combination of artifact collection and what people wrote/created in the past.  This process is unending, as new historical evidence causes us to rethink what we thought we knew.  Forensics helps, but we do that with Church history too.  An example that comes to mind is Mozart-many pieces originally thought to be written by him are now understood to much more likely have been written by his father.

----------


## TER

> Then you won't find much history at all compelling.  History tends to be a combination of artifact collection and what people wrote/created in the past.  This process is unending, as new historical evidence causes us to rethink what we thought we knew.  Forensics helps, but we do that with Church history too.


Well said.  What is bothering Crashland is that he himself has not witnessed a miracle, so such things must not exist.  And he is not alone in saying that.  That is a common proclamation of many people, especially as it appears that miracles are getting less and less commonplace as time marches forward the final day.  Nevertheless, such things happen even today, even if they are not publicized or well known.   Yet many have experienced a miracle and the history of the Church overflows with them.  Should their testimony not be held valid because it did not happen to everyone?

----------


## Crashland

> Then you won't find much history at all compelling.  History tends to be a combination of artifact collection and what people wrote/created in the past.  This process is unending, as new historical evidence causes us to rethink what we thought we knew.  Forensics helps, but we do that with Church history too.


Most historical evidence that we accept are verified from multiple sources. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary evidence is required for it to be reasonable to believe in. If I had a religion and it taught that 1000 years ago, a holy prophet prayed and a miracle occurred where the sun stopped in the sky for a week, that would demand a lot more substantiating evidence than other historical claims.

----------


## TER

> This is supposed to be obvious? I don't find that the Christian church saying "our saints have raised the dead, just take our word for it" is particularly compelling.


That is primarily because you were raised in a Protestant household which likely payed little regard to the workings of the Holy Spirit outside the timeline in the pages of the Bible. 

Yet those who have chronicled the workings of the Holy Spirit working in the world since the Day of Pentecost, then the evidence is overwhelming that God exists, that He loves us, and that He wishes for us to go to Him for healing and salvation.

----------


## Crashland

> Well said.  What is bothering Crashland is that he himself has not witnessed a miracle, so such things must not exist.  And he is not alone in saying that.  That is a common proclamation of many people, especially as it appears that miracles are getting less and less commonplace as time marches forward the final day.  Nevertheless, such things happen even today, even if they are not publicized or well known.   Yet many have experienced a miracle and the history of the Church overflows with them.  Should their testimony not be held valid because it did not happen to everyone?


I don't rule out the possibility of miracles occurring, I just don't see any reason to believe that they do happen. It is true I have not witnessed a miracle, but it isn't just me. *No* miracles have been well documented. None. They are all hearsay. I am also not saying that I don't think people honestly believe they have experienced or witnessed miracles. When you don't know the explanation for something like if someone sick unexpectedly gets better, it is easy to think that it is a miracle. Although I might add, God never performs healing miracles to restore an amputee's lost limb.

----------


## TER

> Most historical evidence that we accept are verified from multiple sources. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary evidence is required for it to be reasonable to believe in. If I had a religion and it taught that 1000 years ago, a holy prophet prayed and a miracle occurred where the sun stopped in the sky for a week, that would demand a lot more substantiating evidence than other historical claims.


Is giving one's life to prove something extraordinary?  I think it is, in only that people don't often give it unless they truly believed it and thought it worth giving their life for.

 If someone says they met the Holy Virgin, that she spoke with them, and they are willing to give their very life as proof for it, is that less evidence then a video tape which can be doctored?  Or your eyes which are easily fooled by illusions?  When someone says 'The Lord's mother came to me and comforted me', what exactly is the greatest proof you would need?

----------


## TER

> I don't rule out the possibility of miracles occurring, I just don't see any reason to believe that they do happen. It is true I have not witnessed a miracle, but it isn't just me. *No* miracles have been well documented. None. They are all hearsay. I am also not saying that I don't think people honestly believe they have experienced or witnessed miracles. When you don't know the explanation for something like if someone sick unexpectedly gets better, it is easy to think that it is a miracle. Although I might add, God never performs healing miracles to restore an amputee's lost limb.


Actually, God has restored the limb of an amputee a few times in the history of the Church.  The proofs are what the Church has experienced, what they have witnessed, what they lived and shared and saw and remembered and memorialized and passed down for the encouragement and instruction of those after them.  But what you are seeking is to see a miracle in order to believe, but that is exactly how it does not work.  Miracles occur on account of the measure of faith.  First one must have faith, then these things happen.  That does not mean the miracle we might want will happen, for example the re-appearance of a limb, for God alone knows what we need and what is necessary for our salvation.  But when we have faith and trust in God and His holy will, then He reaches to us and makes us know His presence in His own way, and reassures us of His love and presence in proofs not measured by the mind or drawn on a diagram, but known in the heart and confirmed by He Himself within us in the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Crashland

> Is giving one's life to prove something extraordinary?  I think it is, in only that people don't often give it unless they truly believed it and thought it worth giving their life for.
> 
>  If someone says they met the Holy Virgin, that she spoke with them, and they are willing to give their very life as proof for it, is that less evidence then a video tape which can be doctored?  Or your eyes which are easily fooled by illusions?  When someone says 'The Lord's mother came to me and comforted me', what exactly is the greatest proof you would need?


Giving your life for something is significant. I might consider it compelling if other religions did not also have martyrs and professing witnesses. Because other religions also have martyrs and witnesses, the martyrdom is more likely to indicate the degree of devotion to the belief than it is to indicate the truth of the belief. People can be very devoted to false beliefs, which is what I presume you believe about the martyrs for every non-Christian religion.

----------


## Crashland

> Actually, God has restored the limb of an amputee a few times in the history of the Church.  The proofs are what the Church has experienced, what they have witnessed, what they lived and shared and saw and remembered and memorialized and passed down for the encouragement and instruction of those after them.  But what you are seeking is to see a miracle in order to believe, but that is exactly how it does not work.  Miracles occur on account of the measure of faith.  First one must have faith, then these things happen.  That does not mean the miracle we might want will happen, for example the re-appearance of a limb, for God alone knows what we need and what is necessary for our salvation.  But when we have faith and trust in God and His holy will, then He reaches to us and makes us know His presence in His own way, and reassures us of His love and presence in proofs not measured by the mind or drawn on a diagram, but known in the heart and confirmed by He Himself within us in the Holy Spirit.


It is in the Church's best interest, in terms of survival and also power, to propagate such testimonies, which makes those things prone to embellishment or total fabrication.

I am not looking for a miracle, per se, although a miracle might be enough. I am looking for any compelling reason to believe that a God exists and specifically the God of the Bible. I find it a bit ridiculous that if God were to exist, that he would choose to reveal himself to humans in the very odd, roundabout, peek-a-boo way that Christianity describes. This reason would have to be something that could not also be applied to a different religion to accept the other religion as truth. I think you are underestimating how similar other religions actually are with respect to their extraordinary claims.

----------


## TER

> Giving your life for something is significant. I might consider it compelling if other religions did not also have martyrs and professing witnesses. Because other religions also have martyrs and witnesses, the martyrdom is more likely to indicate the degree of devotion to the belief than it is to indicate the truth of the belief. People can be very devoted to false beliefs, which is what I presume you believe about the martyrs for every non-Christian religion.


You have spoken correctly.  Martyrdom is simply the greatest form of proof and witness a living being in the universe can give, plain and simple.  It does not speak directly of the veracity of the claim as you noted, but simply on the degree of belief the martyr has for that claim.  This is why the martyrdom of the Apostles are so instructive however, because they were either then completely fooled as Muhammad contends, they were completely stark-raving mad, or they were telling the truth.  Yet if one carefully studies about the lives and personalities of the Apostles, read the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the writings of the early Church saints, then it becomes more and more apparent that as unbelievable as it may sound,  Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was seen by these Apostles.  Precisely because it was such an extraordinary event were there so many willingly to give their lives to witness to it.  These are extraordinary proofs which you are seeking.  There is no greater proof a person can give of their experience and what they have seen and believed.

----------


## Crashland

> You have spoken correctly.  Martyrdom is simply the greatest form of proof and witness a living being in the universe can give, plain and simple.  It does not speak directly of the veracity of the claim as you noted, but simply on the degree of belief the martyr has for that claim.  This is why the martyrdom of the Apostles are so instructive however, because they we either then completely fooled as Muhammad contends, they were completely stark-raving mad, or they were telling the truth.  Yet if one carefully studies about the lives and personalities of the Apostles, read the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the writings of the early Church saints, then it becomes more and more apparent that as unbelievable as it may sound,  Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was seen by these Apostles.  Precisely because it was such an extraordinary event were they so willingly giving their lives to witness to it.   These are extraordinary proofs which you a seeking.  There is not greater proof a person can give of their experience and what they have seen and believed.


This is true, but again, practically every religion has had martyrs and persecution, especially in the early days of the religion with the people closest to it. I don't see Christianity as standing out in that sense.

----------


## TER

> This is true, but again, practically every religion has had martyrs and persecution, especially in the early days of the religion with the people closest to it. I don't see Christianity as standing out in that sense.


I never claimed that Christianity stands out because it has martyrs, but rather, for what is was they were becoming martyrs for.

----------


## Crashland

> I never claimed that Christianity stands out because it has martyrs, but rather, for what is was they were becoming martyrs for.


Granted. I am approaching it from that other angle though, it is important for me that whatever line of reasoning I would use as a basis for belief in a particular religion - in order for that to be a sound line of reasoning, it cannot also be used to arrive at other conclusions that are contradictory. So if I put a lot of weight on the existence of martyrs as a reason to believe Christianity, then I would be able to use Muslim or Mormon martyrs as a reason to believe in Islam or Mormonism as well, which are contradictory conclusions.

I have to head out for the night but ty for discusssion, maybe we can pick it up later. Night

----------


## TER

> Granted. I am approaching it from that other angle though, it is important for me that whatever line of reasoning I would use as a basis for belief in a particular religion - in order for that to be a sound line of reasoning, it cannot also be used to arrive at other conclusions that are contradictory. So if I put a lot of weight on the existence of martyrs as a reason to believe Christianity, then I would be able to use Muslim or Mormon martyrs as a reason to believe in Islam or Mormonism as well, which are contradictory conclusions.
> 
> I have to head out for the night but ty for discusssion, maybe we can pick it up later. Night


I look forward to discussing this some more with you.  Goodnight and thank you for the discussion.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Now I may get you. Thanks. The moon thing was an attempt to answer your question example of why? Overwhelming evidence? You keep saying that but never quite seem to actually produce it. It makes me think that the moon is made of something else. I guess my reason for saying that is that I have reached an age where my tolerance for institutional BS and their apologists is just only about a micron high now.



Here is a question I'm always interested in: What would you accept as evidence?

You can't hold a resurrection in your hands, its not a thing. You can't smell it. I imagine you could see or hear it, maybe even taste it after a sense if it build ozone in the air. But none of that could happen without you being a direct eyewitness to it. Since its hard to just demand a resurrection occur, you're left with eyewitness account. 

So, what about eyewitness accounts? Most people dismiss them because well they come from Christians. The problem I see with that logic is that all the people who have the evidence for the Resurrection became/were Christians. And why wouldn't they? They saw the Risen Son of God. Having defeated Death is a pretty big proof of divine status. So of course eyewitnesses to the Resurrection would become Christians. Yet most Christian sources are dismissed simply because they're Christian. Its like studying D-Day and dismissing the testimony of soldiers at D-Day because they were there and thus know what it was like.

----------


## PierzStyx

> my quoting the entirety of Matthew 7 and pointing out that this 'not novel' moral code brought down the Roman Empire left him spectacularly unfazed.


Except Christianity did no such thing. The Western Roman Empire endured for 443 years after Christ died and rose again. The problems that brought it to an end were institutional problems that existed long before Christianity began having an impact on the Western Empire, which really only happened after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

The Eastern Roman Empire, sometimes called the Byzantine Empire,  (though they and everyone around them called them Romans- the Seljuk Turks even founded the Sultanate of Rum-or Rome- in Anatolia after a major defeat of the "Byzantines" there. Byzantine is largely a historian's invention for ease of teaching) lasted for another thousand years as a Christian empire. This is something TER, as an Orthodox Christian, probably knows at least a little bit about.

----------


## acptulsa

> Your anti-Catholic bigotry seems to litter your posting, but I may be wrong.


The good Lord save us from the thin skin of sectarianism.




> St. Peter, by the way, was a much greater Christian than you, or do you contend that?


Jesus was greater than you, me and Peter put together, and wasn't a Christian at all.  Or do you contend _that_?  Where did this line of questioning come from?  How did I completely fail to convey my point, which was that if Christian A is making headway with an Atheist, Christian B should have enough Christian love for that atheist to refrain from jumping up and yelling, 'Yer doin' it wrong!  The miracles!  The saints!  I don't give a damn if that doesn't impress the person who could actually use convincing!  It impresses _me!  That's_ all that's important!'

'Cause nothing demonstrates Christian love like a 'my preacher sez the miracles are greater than the morality and my saints are better than you' pissing contest.

Enough of this.  I try to sell Jesus to someone who doesn't have Him in a way that particular someone can understand and maybe appreciate, you call me a bigot.  Thanks for not even trying to listen--to either him or me.  Here, have another cheek.




> Except Christianity did no such thing. The Western Roman Empire endured for 443 years after Christ died and rose again. The problems that brought it to an end were institutional problems that existed long before Christianity began having an impact on the Western Empire, which really only happened after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
> 
> The Eastern Roman Empire, sometimes called the Byzantine Empire,  (though they and everyone around them called them Romans- the Seljuk Turks even founded the Sultanate of Rum-or Rome- in Anatolia after a major defeat of the "Byzantines" there. Byzantine is largely a historian's invention for ease of teaching) lasted for another thousand years as a Christian empire. This is something TER, as an Orthodox Christian, probably knows at least a little bit about.


The Byzantine Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire, were hardly the known world-dominating Roman Empire.  And it spent part of those 443 years throwing its Christians to the lions in the Arena.  Which in and of itself was an 'institutional problem.'  We are both oversimplifying history here.

But if Christianity is done _right,_ imperialism and conquest become hard to sell.  Maybe I'm right, and at first Christianity was done right enough to bring down a bloody empire.  Better than the bastardization of it that inspired the Crusades.  Maybe you're right and Christianity wasn't a significant 'institutional problem' at all.  If we had a time machine, I might be willing to wager, but as it is...

----------


## TER

> The good Lord save us from the thin skin of sectarianism.
> 
> Jesus was greater than you, me and Peter put together, and wasn't a Christian at all.  Or do you contend _that_?  Where did this line of questioning come from?  How did I completely fail to convey my point, which was that if Christian A is making headway with an Atheist, Christian B should have enough Christian love for that atheist to refrain from jumping up and yelling, 'Yer doin' it wrong!  The miracles!  The saints!  I don't give a damn if that doesn't impress the person who could actually use convincing!  It impresses _me!  That's_ all that's important!'
> 
> 'Cause nothing demonstrates Christian love like a 'my preacher sez the miracles are greater than the morality and my saints are better than you' pissing contest.
> 
> Enough of this.  I try to sell Jesus to someone who doesn't have Him in a way that particular someone can understand and maybe appreciate, you call me a bigot.  Thanks for not even trying to listen--to either him or me.  Here, have another cheek.


I did listen to both you and him and found that while you were thinking you were helping him, you weren't, but rather propagating through ignoring his lie and confirming his conviction that Christ was a mere man.  This is to the benefit of no one.

----------


## robert68

> Your anti-Catholic bigotry seems to litter your posting, but I may be wrong...


LOL. Now there's the pot calling the kettle black.

----------


## TER

> LOL. Now there's the pot calling the kettle black.


LOL. You are always quick to add nothing to any discussion!

----------


## acptulsa

> I did listen to both you and him and found that while you were thinking you were helping him, you weren't, but rather propagating through ignoring his lie and confirming his conviction that Christ was a mere man.  This is to the benefit of no one.


Is that so?




> If someone says Jesus created the finest moral code the human race has ever seen, does he really need to be _more_ impressed by the crucifixion and the redemption of sins?  Is that not at least as great a miracle as resurrection?  Really?


Or am I merely guilty of taking a different approach from the one that is clearly not working for you?

Give me a break, TER.

----------


## TER

> Is that so?


Yes, I believe it is.  I am sorry if that offends you.




> Or am I merely guilty of taking a different approach from the one that is clearly not working for you?


What approach is that?  Minimizing Christ as the Son of God?  You think that will bring people to Christ?  It doesn't, and that is what erowe and I are trying to explain to you.   If you wish to make more progress in your approach, continue to preach and live the morals Christ taught and commanded _without_ denying or minimizing Who He is.  That is what we are saying to you not to offend you, but to help you.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes, I believe it is.  I am sorry if that offends you.
> 
> 
> 
> What approach is that?  Minimizing Christ as the Son of God?  You think that will bring people to Christ?  It doesn't, and that is what erowe and I are trying to explain to you.   If you wish to make more progress in your approach, continue to preach and live the morals Christ taught and commanded _without_ denying or minimizing Who He is.  That is what we are saying to you not to offend you, but to help you.


So, God gets to try the subtle approach but I'm not allowed to.  Not that He isn't far better at it than I am, but it seems to me I might be free to try.  I can understand a Calvinist trying to tell me I have no such freedom, but...

The man said he didn't witness those miracles and he doesn't trust the eyewitnesses.  So, I asked him if Jesus' _words are evidence of his divinity in themselves._

Descartes said, 'I think therefore I am.'  I say, 'Jesus thought astounding, unprecedented thoughts therefore He is Divine.  And you interrupt this promising line of inquiry to tell me I'm belittling Jesus by saying His lessons to us are _divine_?

Am I allowed enough free will to disagree?

Go to church and stop harassi--er, I mean _helping_ me.

----------


## robert68

> LOL. You are always quick to add nothing to any discussion!


An arrogant Byzantinist who only uses this forum to evangelize his religion may see a principled libertarian poster that way. It's true I don’t go back and forth endlessly with posters who only post at, and not to you, with sermonettes or sermons, and where the main terms they use have no objective meaning.

----------


## TER

> The man said he didn't witness those miracles and he doesn't trust the eyewitnesses.  So, I asked him if Jesus' _words are evidence of his divinity in themselves._


I see.  And what was the answer that you got from him?  Does he now believe Christ is the Creator of the Universe and the only means to salvation since you asked him that?  Or maybe you need more time trying to prove Christ is divine through His teachings?  Perhaps Christ did not have to perform any miracles to demonstrate His truthfulness and authority!  Perhaps He only needed you to explain the Golden Rule a little better!  

If you with to continue with that approach, then do so and take all the time you need, but if you don't want to contend with others who too wish to help bring people to Christ and fight heresy and misrepresentations which are on publicly display and can lead others to confusion, then do it privately.  An open public forum means you will face people like erowe and me who will try and help you in your endeavor (even though you think it harassing).  After all, we are on the same side, even though we are in disagreement here.  The problem is you don't want any advice and don't think you need any help.  Very well then.  I will stop trying to help you since you think it is harassment and leave you to do what you want.  I too have grown tired of this argument.  I certainly believe you are allowed free will to do what you want and say what you want.  I hope you afford me the same free will to do the same, especially when I think what you are saying is not helping your cause as much as you think it is.

----------


## TER

> An arrogant Byzantinist who only uses this forum to evangelize his religion may see a principled libertarian poster that way. It's true I don’t go back and forth endlessly with posters who only post at, and not to you, with sermonettes, and where the main terms in use have no objective meaning.


Robert!  I have missed your attacks!  I was getting worried about you!

----------


## acptulsa

> I see.  And what was the answer that you got from him?  Does he now believe Christ is the Creator of the Universe and the only means to salvation since you asked him that?  Or maybe you need more time trying to prove Christ is divine through His teachings?


Well, yes, that _would_ have been nice.  Unfortunately, I ran into a distinct lack of faith and my time was suddenly up before I really got started.  So, I guess we'll never know if it could have worked.

But I sure thought it was worth a try.

And heresy needs to be fought, yes.  But I see no reason to fight more than one heresy at a time--especially since it seems to work better that way.

Oh, and I'll take all the help I can get.  I just muchly prefer help that, well, you know, actually _helps._  May God forgive me for that...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> An arrogant* Byzantinist* who only uses this forum to evangelize his religion may see a principled libertarian poster that way. It's true I don’t go back and forth endlessly with posters who only post at, and not to you, with sermonettes, and where the main terms they use have no objective meaning.


I had to look this up to figure out what it means.  I attend a Byzantine rite parish and I've never heard it.   TER is Greek Orthodox, not Antiochian-so your claim is inaccurate here. (these churches share a valid sacrament, but are vastly different in culture/ethnic heritage.  You'll never hear Byzantine chant in a Greek parish, for example.)

----------


## TER

> I had to look this up to figure out what it means.  I attend a Byzantine rite parish and I've never heard it.   TER is Greek Orthodox, not Antiochian-so your claim is inaccurate here. (these churches share a valid sacrament, but are vastly different in culture/ethnic heritage.  You'll never hear Byzantine chant in a Greek parish, for example.)


HB, Byzantine chant is the foundational hymnology of all sung worship in all Orthodox Churches and originally was all in Greek which was the universal language used in the Roman Empire and the early Church (which includes the See of Antioch). The Slavic translations and tradition began after Sts. Cyril and Methodius converted the Slavic people and the Byzantine style of composition was spread.   It is a mistake to say that the Greek parishes do not use Byzantine chant. In fact, they sing it in the same Greek as it was done for over a thousand years!  . The same with the history of Antioch, as there too the original chant in the Byzantine style was in Greek.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Jefferson's Religious Beliefs
> *
> Thomas Jefferson was always reluctant to reveal his religious beliefs to the public, but at times he would speak to and reflect upon the public dimension of religion. He was raised as an Anglican, but was influenced by English deists such as Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury. Thus in the spirit of the Enlightenment, he made the following recommendation to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."[1] In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, he clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.[2] Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.
> 
> With the help of Richard Price, a Unitarian minister in London, and Joseph Priestly, an English scientist-clergyman who emigrated to America in 1794, Jefferson eventually arrived at some positive assertions of his private religion. His ideas are nowhere better expressed than in his compilations of extracts from the New Testament "The Philosophy of Jesus" (1804) and "The Life and Morals of Jesus" (1819-20?). The former stems from his concern with the problem of maintaining social harmony in a republican nation. 
> 
> The latter is a multilingual collection of verses that was a product of his private search for religious truth. Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian[3], but he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles Ely, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
> 
> *Church Attendance
> ...


http://www.monticello.org/site/resea...igious-beliefs

----------


## Crashland

I am not sure there is a reason to argue the two approaches. If either one of you presented ideas that are compelling to me then that would be enough regardless of what the other says. My problem with miracles is that I don't have a good reason to believe they occur (for the same reason I don't believe in ghosts, or bigfoot for example), and my problem with good deeds or good teachings as a witness is that Christianity is not unique in that respect.

----------


## acptulsa

> ...and my problem with good deeds or good teachings as a witness is that Christianity is not unique in that respect.


Well, stay away from the bad teachings and you won't be going the _wrong_ direction.  That'll put you in a better situation than many a person whose good faith, due to a lack of diligence, didn't prevent them from being led astray.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I am not sure there is a reason to argue the two approaches. If either one of you presented ideas that are compelling to me then that would be enough regardless of what the other says. My problem with miracles is that I don't have a good reason to believe they occur (for the same reason I don't believe in ghosts, or bigfoot for example), and my problem with good deeds or good teachings as a witness is that Christianity is not unique in that respect.


"Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth." --Mohandas K. Gandhi

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *THOMAS JEFFERSON'S VIEWS OF THE PURITAN FAITH*
> 
> "His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If ever man worshiped a false God, he did. *The being described in his five points is ... a demon of malignant spirit.* It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin"


Source: Thomas Jefferson, Works, Vol. IV, p. 363.

----------


## Voluntarist

> So, what about eyewitness accounts? Most people dismiss them because well they come from Christians. The problem I see with that logic is that all the people who have the evidence for the Resurrection became/were Christians. And why wouldn't they? They saw the Risen Son of God. Having defeated Death is a pretty big proof of divine status. So of course eyewitnesses to the Resurrection would become Christians. Yet most Christian sources are dismissed simply because they're Christian. Its like studying D-Day and dismissing the testimony of soldiers at D-Day because they were there and thus know what it was like.


It's less a matter of who the reports came from (though the homogeneity of the group could add to it) and more a matter of how few there were ... a handful of like-minded compared to thousands of individuals of diverse-minds/cultures for D-Day (plus the film).

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION*Compiled by Jim Walker
> 
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." *-Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782)
> *In spite of right-wing Christian attempts to rewrite history to make Jefferson into a Christian, little about his philosophy resembles that of Christianity. Although Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there exists nothing in the Declaration about Christianity.
> 
> Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.
> 
> Distortions of history occur in the minds of many Christians whenever they see the word "God" embossed in statue or memorial concrete. For example, those who visit the Jefferson Memorial in Washington will read Jefferson's words engraved: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man." When they see the word "God" many Christians see this as "proof" of his Christianity without thinking that "God" can have many definitions ranging from nature to supernatural. Yet how many of them realize that this passage aimed at attacking the tyranny of the Christian clergy of Philadelphia, or that Jefferson's God was not the personal god of Christianity? Those memorial words came from a letter written to Benjamin Rush in 1800 in response to Rush's warning about the Philadelphia clergy attacking Jefferson (Jefferson was seen as an infidel by his enemies during his election for President). The complete statement reads as follows:
> 
> ...


http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> HB, Byzantine chant is the foundational hymnology of all sung worship in all Orthodox Churches and originally was all in Greek which was the universal language used in the Roman Empire and the early Church (which includes the See of Antioch). The Slavic translations and tradition began after Sts. Cyril and Methodius converted the Slavic people and the Byzantine style of composition was spread.   It is a mistake to say that the Greek parishes do not use Byzantine chant. In fact, they sing it in the same Greek as it was done for over a thousand years!  . The same with the history of Antioch, as there too the original chant in the Byzantine style was in Greek.


I stand corrected.  Thanks!  I just now re-read what I said before and i feel rather silly... :/  Did the slavs really use the Byzantine style?  From what I've studied so far, I got the impression that their chant had a more "Western" sensibility to it.
Russian:


Byzantine:



Byzantine music uses 7 "tones", and AFAIK, no other Orthodox chant uses them (the others, as I understand, use the Western standard and plagal modes)

----------


## Ronin Truth

*Web Sites with Links to The Jefferson Bible:* 

*The On-Line Books Page | Barefoot's World 
The Dirty Hippy's Liberal Christian Home Journal | The Left Hemisphere 
The Internet Public Library | The Ethical Spectacle | Allfaiths Press 
Centre for Applied Ethics | The InterGalactic Library American Religion Links | Philosophy of Religion Resources 
Interlude: An Internet Retreat | One Man's Thoughts | Freethinkers 
Thomas Jefferson's Religious Beliefs | Famous Unitarian Universalists 
Ferrell's Angelfire Page List | OurChurch.Com | Interpreting Thomas Jefferson 
The Wall | Jason Tippitt | Free World | The Freak Out Homepage 
Christian Depot | The Federalist | Oliver Hinds Homepage | Common Sense Jr. 
Jerusalem Christian Review | Thomas Jefferson: A Unitarian Universalist Perspective 
Highway for our God | The Independent Institute | LibertyTree | Terry Jordan's U.S. History Page 
Rovin' and Ravin' with Mike*

----------


## TER

> I stand corrected.  Thanks!  I just now re-read what I said before and i feel rather silly... :/  Did the slavs really use the Byzantine style?  From what I've studied so far, I got the impression that their chant had a more "Western" sensibility to it.
> Russian:
> 
> 
> Byzantine:
> 
> 
> 
> Byzantine music uses 7 "tones", and AFAIK, no other Orthodox chant uses them (the others, as I understand, use the Western standard and plagal modes)


HB, I found this nice article about the history of Russian liturgical chant you might like and anyone else who is interested.    
http://www.synaxis.info/psalom/resea...t_history.html

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The fact that it [Christianity] does exist is proof that the resurrection really happened.


No, it's simply evidence that a great many people believe it really happened.  Truth doesn't automatically follow from consensus.

You claim there is "overwhelming evidence" of the Resurrection, yet the only evidence you have referred to are the books of the New Testament.  What evidence is there that these are historically accurate?  It's not as if they were written by disinterested historians who didn't have an agenda.  What extra-biblical evidence is there?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No, it's simply evidence that a great many people believe it really happened. Truth doesn't automatically follow from consensus.
> 
> You claim there is "overwhelming evidence" of the Resurrection, yet the only evidence you have referred to are the books of the New Testament. What evidence is there that these are historically accurate? It's not as if they were written by disinterested historians who didn't have an agenda. What extra-biblical evidence is there?


Good luck on ever finding any credible extra-biblical evidence.

----------


## robert68

> Robert!  I have missed your attacks!  I was getting worried about you!


Sure you have. Thats why the last time I pointed out the tyrannical history of your religion, you responded with an angry worded negative rep. But you need something, even a lie, to deflect from the fact your moral compass has little to do with individual rights.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sure you have. *That’s why the last time I pointed out the tyrannical history of your religion,* you responded with an angry worded negative rep. But you need something, even a lie, to deflect from the fact your moral compass has little to do with individual rights.


I missed that exchange-were you pointing to Protestants or the post-Constantine Roman Emperors or what?  Christianity has long been in a very wide diaspora, and it's pretty hard to blame Christianity generally for what specific Christians did.  Regardless, when you pick n' choose from Christian history to make a point, you've already committed the fallacy of reasoning from parts to whole-leaving your conclusions questionable at best.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Here is a question I'm always interested in: What would you accept as evidence?
> 
> You can't hold a resurrection in your hands, its not a thing. You can't smell it. I imagine you could see or hear it, maybe even taste it after a sense if it build ozone in the air. But none of that could happen without you being a direct eyewitness to it. Since its hard to just demand a resurrection occur, you're left with eyewitness account. 
> 
> So, what about eyewitness accounts? Most people dismiss them because well they come from Christians. The problem I see with that logic is that all the people who have the evidence for the Resurrection became/were Christians. And why wouldn't they? They saw the Risen Son of God. Having defeated Death is a pretty big proof of divine status. So of course eyewitnesses to the Resurrection would become Christians. Yet most Christian sources are dismissed simply because they're Christian. Its like studying D-Day and dismissing the testimony of soldiers at D-Day because they were there and thus know what it was like.


An excellent question, I often use it myself. Currently I'm using Occam's Razor and Carl Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" dictum. They may be difficult to apply in these types of old history situations. That is also why I am a fan of the TJ approach of excising all of the mystical mumbo jumbo and magical miracles as not being verifiable or provable. If someone can come up with some extraordinary evidence and simplest explanations, I'm all ears. The official orthodox explanations leave an awful lot to be desired.

----------


## robert68

> I missed that exchange-were you pointing to Protestants or the post-Constantine Roman Emperors or what?  Christianity has long been in a very wide diaspora, and it's pretty hard to blame Christianity generally for what specific Christians did.  Regardless, when you pick n' choose from Christian history to make a point, you've already committed the fallacy of reasoning from parts to whole-leaving your conclusions questionable at best.


I made a truthful remark about his religions history, with some sarcasm (and he got upset). That’s all there was.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I made a truthful remark about his religions history, with some sarcasm (and he got upset). Thats all there was.


I can relate.   There's a lot of that sort of thing going around.

----------


## jmdrake

> Why do they need to?
> 
> If someone says Jesus created the finest moral code the human race has ever seen, does he really need to be _more_ impressed by the crucifixion and the redemption of sins?  Is that not at least as great a miracle as resurrection?  Really?
> 
> I am reminded of John Lennon talking about people caring about the man Jesus but ignoring what He said.  Is that not rejection of Him?  If impressing us with His miracles was the main point, then why did He encourage His disciples to call Him 'Teacher'?  If the temptation have a greater reverence for Him than for His divine lessons _isn't_ what the anti-Christ is counting upon to help him pull off his evil agenda, then why would he misidentify himself as Jesus Reincarnate at all?
> 
> Jesus' miraculous forgiveness could only be more important than His miraculously wise moral code to someone who is trying to sneak into Heaven through a loophole, rather than go to the trouble to get their heart fit enough to be worthy of the place and the community which will make up God's Kingdom.


Actually the two go hand in hand.  Without the "miracle of forgiveness" (as you put it), someone could look at the moral code, which Jesus actually made harder, and say "Screw it!  There's no way I can live up to that!"  Seriously.  Do you know a man that wasn't born blind or gay who can honestly say he's never looked at a woman with lust?  Further the "miracle of forgiveness" is part of the moral code itself.  Remember the parable of the two debtors?  One owed the king a lot of money, the other owed his fellow servant a few pennies?  The king forgave the debt of the first servant, but when he was unwilling to forgive his fellow servant's debt, his debt to the king was reinstated.  Jesus then said part of His moral code was "If you aren't willing to forgive your fellow man, your heavenly Father will not forgive you."  Jesus' moral code means nothing if you lack the ability to forgive.  And the true Christian's ability to forgive springs from his gratitude for being forgiven.

----------


## acptulsa

> Actually the two go hand in hand.


Yes, I know.  And I've said so elsewhere--iirc in this very thread.  I just neglected to fatten up that post with it; I didn't see the need.

But I'm giving you a rep anyway, because I've never seen it stated so elegantly.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Actually the two go hand in hand. Without the "miracle of forgiveness" (as you put it), someone could look at the moral code, which Jesus actually made harder, and say "Screw it! There's no way I can live up to that!" Seriously. Do you know a man that wasn't born blind or gay who can honestly say he's never looked at a woman with lust? Further the "miracle of forgiveness" is part of the moral code itself. Remember the parable of the two debtors? One owed the king a lot of money, the other owed his fellow servant a few pennies? The king forgave the debt of the first servant, but when he was unwilling to forgive his fellow servant's debt, his debt to the king was reinstated. Jesus then said part of His moral code was "If you aren't willing to forgive your fellow man, your heavenly Father will not forgive you." Jesus' moral code means nothing if you lack the ability to forgive. And the true Christian's ability to forgive springs from his gratitude for being forgiven.


I really kind of doubt that Jesus demands perfection from his fallible (by design) sinful human brethren, sincere efforts with some successes will probably suffice. If I'm wrong, I apologize, and please forgive me.

----------


## jmdrake

> I really kind of doubt that Jesus demands perfection from his fallible (by design) sinful human brethren, sincere efforts with some successes will probably suffice. If I'm wrong, I apologize, and please forgive me.


I dispute whether we are fallible by design.  I believe we are fallible as a result of the fall.  But besides that, yes.  We aren't perfect.  That's why we need forgiveness.

----------


## acptulsa

> I really kind of doubt that Jesus demands perfection from his fallible (by design) sinful human brethren, sincere efforts with some successes will probably suffice. If I'm wrong, I apologize, and please forgive me.


God _seems_ to find earned character more interesting than design perfection.  And has a right to do so.

----------


## otherone

> God _seems_ to find earned character more interesting than design perfection.  And has a right to do so.


I am under the impression that God's chief concern is obedience.

----------


## Crashland

> I am under the impression that God's chief concern is obedience.


Also power. In Genesis 3 the reason God would not allow Adam and eve to eat from the tree of life again is because now that they have become like God in having an understanding of good and evil, allowing them to live forever like God too would just be totally unacceptable. Genesis 3:22

Interesting too that God expected them not to do evil *before* they even had any knowledge of what good and evil were. They soon found out that God declares good and evil is synonymous with obedience or disobedience to God

----------


## Seraphim

Who is this Jesus fellow I keep hearing about?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Who is this Jesus fellow I keep hearing about?


Be more specific.  There are lots of people named Jesus.  It's a very common name and has been translated into almost every language.  It means "Joshua" in English.

----------


## acptulsa

> Who is this Jesus fellow I keep hearing about?


No such thing.  You just keep overhearing Phoebus Apollo and Athena and Ares and Aphrodite and all that family calling their father--'Hey, Zeus!'

----------


## robert68

> *Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire*
> 
> The persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire began late during the reign of Constantine the Great, when he ordered the pillaging and the tearing down of some temples.[1][2][3] The first anti-Pagan laws by the Christian state started with Constantine's son Constantius II,[4][5] who was an unwavering opponent of paganism; he ordered the closing of all pagan temples, forbade Pagan sacrifices under pain of death,[2] and removed the traditional Altar of Victory from the Senate.[6] Under his reign ordinary Christians started vandalizing many of the ancient Pagan temples, tombs and monuments.[7][8][9][10]
> 
> From 361 till 375, Paganism was relatively tolerated, until three Emperors, Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius I, under Bishop of Milan Saint Ambrose's influence, reinstituted and escalated the persecution.[11][12] Under pressure from the zealous Ambrose, Theodosius issued the infamous 391 "Theodosian decrees," a declaration of war on paganism,[12][13] the Altar of Victory was removed again by Gratian, the Vestal Virgins were disbanded, and access to Pagan temples was prohibited.
> ...



Emperor Theodosius I, a "Saint" in the "EOC", was a baptized Christian miltary commander. He arranged the 2nd Ecumenical Council and formally made "Catholic Christianity" the only legal religion in the Roman Empire:




> *The Theodosian Code (Book XVI), 326 From The Theodosian Code*
> 
> I, 2. IT IS Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans, as the religion which he introduced makes clear even unto this day. It is evident that this is the religion that is followed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity; that is, according to the apostolic discipline and the evangelic doctrine, we shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity.
> 
> We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment (28 February 380).
> 
> I, 3. We command that all churches shall immediately be surrendered to those bishops who confess that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one majesty and virtue, of the same glory, and of one splendor; to those bishops who produce no dissonance by unholy distinction, but who affirm the concept of the Trinity by the assertion of three Persons and thr unity of the Divinity. . . . All, he ever, who dissent from the communio' of the faith of those who have been expressly mentioned in this special enumeration shall be expelled from their churches as manifest heretics and hereafter shall be altogether denied the right and power to obtain churches, in order that the priesthood of the true Nicene faith may remain pure, and after the clear regulations of Our law, there shall be no opportunity for malicious subtlety (30 July 381).
> --more

----------


## Deborah K

> Thanks! I think I'm looking for something else more physical and definitive.  It may not even exist.  How inconvenient?  Learned opinions are going for about 5 cents per truckload. But I'll keep it in mind.


You mentioned Carl Sagan earlier in a post, I believe.  Did you know that he once stated:  "Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence" ?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You mentioned Carl Sagan earlier in a post, I believe. Did you know that he once stated: "Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence" ?


 Yep, thanks, but I'm not sure I agree.  Gonna have to work on that one some more.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yep, thanks, but I'm not sure I agree.  Gonna have to work on that one some more.


That's similar to someone who lived before the microscope was invented stating that there is no evidence of molecules, therefore they don't exist.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That's similar to someone who lived before the microscope was invented stating that there is no evidence of molecules, therefore they don't exist.


 For that person they didn't exist. It invokes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". No evidence, discount the claim. Then there's the claims about the Anunnaki. The evidence sure looks extraordinary to me.

----------


## Deborah K

> For that person they didn't exist. It invokes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". No evidence, discount the claim. Then there's the claims about the Anunnaki. The evidence sure looks extraordinary to me.


Why are you willing to accept the Annunaki story and not the Jesus story?  If the Annunaki came from another world, mined our gold, and fused us with the humanoid already evolving here, (which is the theory) right, the THEORY - how is that so different from a man being sent to earth by a Creator; a man who was given, by the Creator, extraordinary powers that were witnessed by thousands, written down, and changed humanity forever; a man who was brought back to life and ascended into the heavens?  Why is one story more credible than the other?

----------


## TER

> Why are you willing to accept the Annunaki story and not the Jesus story?  If the Annunaki came from another world, mined our gold, and fused us with the humanoid already evolving here, (which is the theory) right, the THEORY - how is that so different from a man being sent to earth by a Creator; a man who was given, by the Creator, extraordinary powers that were witnessed by thousands, written down, and changed humanity forever; a man who was brought back to life and ascended into the heavens?  Why is one story more credible than the other?


Because in the previous theory, Ronin won't have to answer for his sins.

----------


## amy31416

If you believe that God created the universe, skip the flawed middlemen who wrote the bible and study nature.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Why are you willing to accept the Annunaki story and not the Jesus story? If the Annunaki came from another world, mined our gold, and fused us with the humanoid already evolving here, (which is the theory) right, the THEORY - how is that so different from a man being sent to earth by a Creator; a man who was given, by the Creator, extraordinary powers that were witnessed by thousands, written down, and changed humanity forever; a man who was brought back to life and ascended into the heavens? Why is one story more credible than the other?


 *EVIDENCE!
*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Because in the previous theory, Ronin won't have to answer for his sins.


 Jesus died WHY?  My God doesn't hold a grudge about a poached apple for eternity.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If you believe that God created the universe, skip the flawed middlemen who wrote the bible and study nature.


"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan! The proper study of mankind is Man."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you believe that God created the universe, skip the flawed middlemen who wrote the bible and study nature.


God gave us the "middlemen", comrade. (but I don't think that's an accurate word for clergymen, saints, prophets, and so on...I'll think of a better one sometime)

----------


## TER

> If you believe that God created the universe, skip the flawed middlemen who wrote the bible and study nature.


The saints who you called flawed middlemen who wrote the bible are amongst the most beautiful things to study in nature.  

God is certainly glorified in nature and in His handiworks, such as in the cosmos and in the rivers and under the microscopes and beyond human perception, but nowhere is He more glorified and His beauty more clearly shown _from_ nature than in His saints who are the children of God made in His image and likeness.  The human act of selfless mercy and love for the love of another is the greatest 'thing' this universe can do and the greatest proof of His existence.   Science has beauty in it, no doubt, and through the study of science, the person can come to find God in the order and beauty of it, but the culmination of science, the reason there is a material science, is so that His children might share in full and eternal loving communion with all and in all by the grace of God.

----------


## TER

> Jesus died WHY?


Jesus died so that you might rise again from the dead and not be held captive to eternal separation of your body from your soul on account of the transgression of Adam.  Having been granted this awesome gift, you will then be judged by Christ on whether you should enter into His Kingdom according to the things you have said and done in this life.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Jesus died so that you might rise again from the dead and not be held captive to eternal separation of your body from your soul on account of the transgression of Adam. Having been granted this awesome gift, you will then be judged by Christ on whether you should enter into His Kingdom according to the things you have said and done in this life.


 Uhhh, did you just conveniently forget about the sins of the world part?

----------


## amy31416

> The saints who you called flawed middlemen who wrote the bible are amongst the most beautiful things to study in nature.  
> 
> God is certainly glorified in nature and in His handiworks, such as in the cosmos and in the rivers and under the microscopes and beyond human perception, but nowhere is He more glorified and His beauty more clearly shown _from_ nature than in His saints who are the children of God made in His image and likeness.  The human act of selfless mercy and love for the love of another is the greatest 'thing' this universe can do and the greatest proof of His existence.   Science has beauty in it, no doubt, and through the study of science, the person can come to find God in the order and beauty of it, but the culmination of science, the reason there is a material science, is so that His children might share in full and eternal loving communion with all and in all by the grace of God.


I think you get what I'm saying, but humanity is so incredibly flawed (myself included) that I won't take too many people's word for it. I'm a ground-up sort of person, not top-down.

----------


## jmdrake

> Why are you willing to accept the Annunaki story and not the Jesus story?  If the Annunaki came from another world, mined our gold, and fused us with the humanoid already evolving here, (which is the theory) right, the THEORY - how is that so different from a man being sent to earth by a Creator; a man who was given, by the Creator, extraordinary powers that were witnessed by thousands, written down, and changed humanity forever; a man who was brought back to life and ascended into the heavens?  Why is one story more credible than the other?





> Because in the previous theory, Ronin won't have to answer for his sins.





> Uhhh, did you just conveniently forget about the sins of the world part?


Ronin, let me see if I understand you.  Under your understanding TER's theory you don't have to answer for your sins either because Jesus' died for them?

----------


## TER

> Uhhh, did you just conveniently forget about the sins of the world part?


Not at all.  You will rise again because Christ has vanquished the power of death.  He did this by uniting His divine nature with our human nature, living sinlessly and dying blamelessly, and in doing so has rendered the _wages_ of sin, namely death, impotent against our nature.  Christ took upon Himself the sins of the world, including your and mine and all future sins no matter how grievous, so that by His perfect obedience and purity, these sins could not have the power of eternal death upon us.  

That being said and established, He then taught and promised that after all of us rise from the dead in the General Resurrection on the Final Day, we will then be judged for the sins we have committed against Him and our neighbors.  This is the teachings of the fathers of the Church of which you might not have been aware.  Christ has done the work of giving us a chance at eternal life, but we must willingly take this path and follow His commandments to the best of our abilities if we wish to enter through the gates into the Kingdom of Heaven.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Not at all. You will rise again because Christ has vanquished the power of death. He did this by uniting His divine nature with our human nature, living sinlessly and dying blamelessly, and in doing so has rendered the _wages_ of sin, namely death, impotent against our nature. Christ took upon Himself the sins of the world, including your and mine and all future sins no matter how grievous, so that by His perfect obedience and purity, these sins could not have the power of eternal death upon us. 
> 
> That being said and established, He then taught and promised that after all of us rise from the dead in the General Resurrection on the Final Day, we will then be judged for the sins we have committed against Him and our neighbors. This is the teachings of the fathers of the Church of which you might not have been aware. Christ has done the work of giving us a chance at eternal life, but we must willingly take this path and follow His commandments to the best of our abilities if we wish to enter through the gates into the Kingdom of Heaven.


So making a long story shorter my sins are covered because Jesus died to have them forgiven.  I still think I much prefer my version of reality to yours.

----------


## TER

> So making a long story shorter my sins are covered because Jesus died to have them forgiven.  I still think I much prefer my version of reality to yours.


No, you misunderstand me.  You will be responsible for your sins.  They may not be enough to keep your soul separated from the body which turned to dust, but they might be enough to keep you out of the eternal Kingdom of God.

And you are of course free to prefer whatever version you like.  I stand by the truth given by Jesus Christ over yours.

----------


## Crashland

> Not at all.  You will rise again because Christ has vanquished the power of death.  He did this by uniting His divine nature with our human nature, living sinlessly and dying blamelessly, and in doing so has rendered the _wages_ of sin, namely death, impotent against our nature.  Christ took upon Himself the sins of the world, including your and mine and all future sins no matter how grievous, so that by His perfect obedience and purity, these sins could not have the power of eternal death upon us.  
> 
> That being said and established, He then taught and promised that after all of us rise from the dead in the General Resurrection on the Final Day, we will then be judged for the sins we have committed against Him and our neighbors.  This is the teachings of the fathers of the Church of which you might not have been aware.  Christ has done the work of giving us a chance at eternal life, but we must willingly take this path and follow His commandments to the best of our abilities if we wish to enter through the gates into the Kingdom of Heaven.


So Jesus released all of us from the grip of death due to sin, but then when we don't die, we still get judged for our sins and we only get eternal life if we believed/did the right things? 

Or is it that we get eternal life either way, but when we are judged if we didn't believe/do the right things then we get something even worse than death?

----------


## TER

> So Jesus released all of us from the grip of death due to sin, but then when we don't die, we still get judged for our sins and we only get eternal life if we believed/did the right things? 
> 
> Or is it that we get eternal life either way, but when we are judged if we didn't believe/do the right things then we get something even worse than death?


The second sentence.  As long as God wills it, we will remain eternal, that is our souls are eternal as long as God has His grace upon us.  Because of Christ's work on the cross and His resurrection, all will reunite with their bodies.  We have been freed from the wages of sin (which is death) that was brought upon our nature by our forefather Adam.   Now, death has no eternal power over us and we all will rise again.  God has not left us in the pit because of the sin of Adam, but rather has raised our nature out of the pit when He united Himself with our nature and lifted it up and healed and restored it in perfect communion at the right hand of the Father.  

After we arise in our new bodies, we will then be judged for the sins we have personally done in our life, for we will have no one other than ourselves to blame for our sins.  Jesus Christ than will judge us according to our works and our hearts, and if it wasn't for His mercy, no one would be saved.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No, you misunderstand me. You will be responsible for your sins. They may not be enough to keep your soul separated from the body which turned to dust, but they might be enough to keep you out of the eternal Kingdom of God.
> 
> And you are of course free to prefer whatever version you like. I stand by the truth given by Jesus Christ over yours.


"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

----------


## robert68

> If you believe that God created the universe, skip the flawed middlemen who wrote the bible and study nature.


A little circular thinking and you can get rid of those “flaws”.

----------


## Deborah K

> *EVIDENCE!
> *


What evidence??  Where is the EVIDENCE that the Annunaki existed?  Unearthly DNA extracted from bones?  Space ships?  Or just stuff written down?  And some art.

----------


## TER

> "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell


Wow, that almost sounded like a quote demonstrating humility on the part of Bertrand Russell.  I wonder if you can find any more!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell


"The problem with quotes without citation on the internet is that one never knows if they're accurate or support the quoter's point in context".  ~Mr Wizard

----------


## Crashland

> The second sentence.  As long as God wills it, we will remain eternal, that is our souls are eternal as long as God has His grace upon us.  Because of Christ's work on the cross and His resurrection, all will reunite with their bodies.  We have been freed from the wages of sin (which is death) that was brought upon our nature by our forefather Adam.   Now, death has no eternal power over us and we all will rise again.  God has not left us in the pit because of the sin of Adam, but rather has raised our nature out of the pit when He united Himself with our nature and lifted it up and healed and restored it in perfect communion at the right hand of the Father.  
> 
> After we arise in our new bodies, we will then be judged for the sins we have personally done in our life, for we will have no one other than ourselves to blame for our sins.  Jesus Christ than will judge us according to our works and our hearts, and if it wasn't for His mercy, no one would be saved.


It would have been better for non-believers then if God had simply allowed them to die in the first place instead of saving them from death just so that they will live forever in eternal torment.

----------


## Deborah K

> "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell



ugh...Bertand Russell, the Fabian Socialist.  He also quoted this:




> "In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.”

----------


## Crashland

> ugh...Bertand Russell, the Fabian Socialist.  He also quoted this:


He sure did! It would be quite fallacious to assume that Bertrand Russell is always wrong or always right. I'm sure that's not what you were hinting at though

----------


## Deborah K

> He sure did! It would be quite fallacious to assume that Bertrand Russell is always wrong or always right.


Yeah, like Hitler.  Not always wrong or always right.

----------


## TER

> It would have been better for non-believers then if God had simply allowed them to die in the first place instead of saving them from death just so that they will live forever in eternal torment.


No, because they would have never had the opportunity to truly live.

Adam and Even were banished from the Garden after they were corrupted in sin and were under the sentence and power of death.  This was on account of their sin (for sin is separation from God, and since God is Life, then sin is separation from life).  But even in this, according to the fathers, God is demonstrating His love and mercy upon mankind.  For having sinned, He did not allow them to then suffer the fate of eternal separation from Him due to sin, but allowed death so that there might be an end to the separation.  For by His providence and wisdom and in the appointed time, God would come down Himself and remove the stain upon our nature which caused us separation from Him, tear the veil separating God from us, deify our soul and bodies and grant us the ability to rise like Him into the newness of eternal and whole and loving communion with God.  This is the return to paradise, the re-entrance into Eden given to us by God according to our love in His image and likeness.  

But for such a great reward, there also comes a price, and that price is trust, faith, obedience, and loving devotion to Him Who has made all of this possible.  And those who reject Him then reject too His gifts, and then they will be cast into the fire to be eternally consumed having rejected life itself which comes from God.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What evidence?? Where is the EVIDENCE that the Annunaki existed? Unearthly DNA extracted from bones? Space ships? Or just stuff written down? And some art.


  How much would you like?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> ugh...Bertand Russell, the Fabian Socialist. He also quoted this:


  True, also much much more.

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

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/

----------


## Ronin Truth

> "The problem with quotes without citation on the internet is that one never knows if they're accurate or support the quoter's point in context". ~Mr Wizard


http://atheisme.free.fr/Quotes/Russell.htm

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ronin, let me see if I understand you. Under your understanding TER's theory you don't have to answer for your sins either because Jesus' died for them?


Yep, that's the way I was raised.  Yeah, I can play that hand.  Not being a Christian makes that a whole lot easier.

----------


## Crashland

> No, because they would have never had the opportunity to truly live.
> 
> Adam and Even were banished from the Garden after they were corrupted in sin and were under the sentence and power of death.  This was on account of their sin (for sin is separation from God, and since God is Life, then sin is separation from life).  But even in this, according to the fathers, God is demonstrating His love and mercy upon mankind.  For having sinned, He did not allow them to then suffer the fate of eternal separation from Him due to sin, but allowed death so that there might be an end to the separation.  For by His providence and wisdom and in the appointed time, God would come down Himself and remove the stain upon our nature which caused us separation from Him, tear the veil separating God from us, deify our soul and bodies and grant us the ability to rise like Him into the newness of eternal and whole and loving communion with God.  This is the return to paradise, the re-entrance into Eden given to us by God according to our love in His image and likeness.


Seems reasonable enough.




> But for such a great reward, there also comes a price, and that price is trust, faith, obedience, and loving devotion to Him Who has made all of this possible.  And those who reject Him then reject too His gifts, and then they will be cast into the fire to be eternally consumed having rejected life itself which comes from God.


Suppose I have an email account and I receive 100 solicitations, and they tend to have the same types of messages. One of them reads something like "If you send your entire life's savings via bank wire to this account, I promise I will reward you ten times over. Check out my website you can read all about it. Btw, you don't even want to know what will happen to you if you don't." I check out the email, maybe visit the website, do some due diligence and it looks like a scam just like the other 99 solicitations. *Delete*. I also warn people about it so that they don't get duped or driven by fear because of the threat.

I can't speak for all non-believers, but for myself that's the kind of "rejection" we are talking about here. If I end up being wrong and something terrible happens to me, well that would suck but in retrospect I can't say that I should have done anything differently. If God is the kind of God who considers that kind of a "rejection" worthy of such punishment I don't think I would have wanted to spend eternity with him anyway.

----------


## TER

> Seems reasonable enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose I have an email account and I receive 100 solicitations, and they tend to have the same types of messages. One of them reads something like "If you send your entire life's savings via bank wire to this account, I promise I will reward you ten times over. Check out my website you can read all about it. Btw, you don't even want to know what will happen to you if you don't." I check out the email, maybe visit the website, do some due diligence and it looks like a scam just like the other 99 solicitations. *Delete*. I also warn people about it so that they don't get duped or driven by fear because of the threat.
> 
> I can't speak for all non-believers, but for myself that's the kind of "rejection" we are talking about here. If I end up being wrong and something terrible happens to me, well that would suck but in retrospect I can't say that I should have done anything differently. If God is the kind of God who considers that kind of a "rejection" worthy of such punishment I don't think I would have wanted to spend eternity with him anyway.


It has to do with our very ontology, our very being and source of being.  Everything comes to us from God.  Apart from God, we have no existence.  God has written in the hearts of all men the law and has endowed them with the voice of God which is in their conscious.  Our moral foundations which are deep seated in our psyche have been placed there by God in our created natures made in His image.  Thus, it is not as if God is sending us an email from an unknown source amidst the cacophony of other email solicitations as much as it is Him knocking at the door of our hearts so that we can truly become human beings. We become truly human when we are confirmed in the image of Christ.  God is no more far and unreachable from us, such as unknown email sender.  He knows us, can truly empathize with us having put on our nature, and He speaks in our conscious and in our hearts so that we might do the good He wills of us so as to confirm greater into His image and likeness, and grow into deeper and fuller communion with Him.  And in this communion, we find the gifts of divinity including eternal life.  In this we find our true personhood, our true humanity. 

When we reject these knockings on the doors of our hearts (and they can happen every day, and several times a day as we simply glance over them or think them to be coincidental), then our punishment is in actuality self-inflicted, namely on account of pride and vainglory.  We have denied the very source of life and chosen something else (even our own three pound brain) over Him, then we are less human and eventually become spiritually dead already. 

Every person who has learned about about the story, life, and teachings of Jesus Christ have had for at least one single moment the thought that perhaps Jesus Christ truly is Who He claimed to be.  Our very nature desires it to be true in its very material fiber.  For some people, this one single thought may have been enough to convert them to the truth and toward the path He paved.  For some, it takes repeated wrestling and research until this becomes clear and the door of the heart is fully opened and He is allowed in.  For others, these thoughts have been so repeatedly drowned out by doubt and pride that they cannot even barely hear it any more, even though by nature, by their conscious, and by their deep seated psyche it is there and ready to be activated again and answered if the heart is softened and humbled. 

We will not be able to blame God for our rejection of Him, nor for our rejection of life being that God is our life.  It is instead often times our own habitual self-will and doubt and the passions we had allowed to become masters over us which cloud our conscious, dull our ears and numb our minds from humbling ourselves and accepting Christ in faith into our hearts and allowing Him to grant us understanding, reassurance and eternal life.

----------


## Crashland

> It has to do with our very ontology, our very being and source of being.  Everything comes from us from God.  Apart from God, we have no existence.  God has written in the hearts of all men the law and has endowed them with the voice of God which is in their conscious.  Our moral foundations which are deep seated in our psyche have been placed there by God in our created natures made in His image.  Thus, it is not as if God is sending us an email from an unknown source amidst the cacophony of other email solicitations as much as it is Him knocking at the door of our hearts, awaiting us to hear Him speak in our conscious so that we might do the good He wills of us so as to confirm greater into His image and likeness and grow into deeper and fuller communion with Him.  And in this communion, we find the gifts of divinity including eternal life.  When we reject these knockings on the doors of our hearts (and they can happen every day, and several times a day though he simply glance over them or think them to be coincidental), then our punishment is in actuality self-inflicted, namely on account of pride and vainglory.  We have denied the very source of life and chosen something else (even our own three pound brain) over Him.


The cacophony of other emails are the other religions with different claims. The rest of what you are saying is certainly consistent within the Christian supposition but does not help outside of that when one has not established the authenticity of the email in the first place.




> Every person who has learned about about the story, life, and teachings of Jesus Christ have had for at least one single moment the thought that perhaps Jesus Christ truly is He Who claimed to be.  Our very nature desires it to be true in its very material fiber.


I agree that it is natural. Desiring that which we cannot have is indeed something that is in our nature. I think that people usually desire for these things to be true because it provides an easier way to cope with things like death, loneliness, feelings of guilt/regret, or injustice.




> For some people, this one single thought may have been enough to convert them to the truth and toward the path He paved.  For some, it takes repeated wrestling and research until this becomes clear and the door of the heart is fully opened and He is allowed in.  For some, these thought have been so repeatedly numbed out by doubt and pride that they cannot even barely hear it ever more, even though by nature, by their conscious, and by their deep seated psyche it is there and willingly to be activated again if the heart is softened and humbled.
> 
> We will not be able to blame God for our rejection of Him and in like manner, life itself which He is the Source of.  It would have been our own habitual self-will and the passions we had allowed to become masters over us which clouded our conscious, dulled our ears and numbed our minds from humbling ourselves and accepting Christ in faith, opening our hearts and allowing Him to grant us understanding and eternal life.


Yes, it is always good to remain open-minded. However if one does their due diligence to the very best of their ability and still currently believes the email from John Smith is a scam, even if the email was actually the truth, it is not a rejection of John Smith, it is a lack of belief that there is actually a person named John Smith who will do what the email says he will. A person cannot control that which they are or aren't convinced of. Is it the recipient's fault for rejecting a true claim when it looks to them exactly like a hundred other false ones? And if it is their fault, is it really a moral fault worthy of judgment, or is it just that they weren't intelligent enough to see it?

----------


## TER

Thank you for the discussion, but I need to get some rest.  We should continue this tomorrow.  Goodnight.

----------


## Crashland

> Thank you for the discussion, but I need to get some rest.  We should continue this tomorrow.  Goodnight.


Good night, and thank you too, always a good discussion

----------


## Deborah K

> How much would you like?


How about whatever it was that convinced you to believe the Annunaki story over the Jesus story?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> How about whatever it was that convinced you to believe the Annunaki story over the Jesus story?


I guess that I'm pretty close to TJ's view on the Jesus story. I really like both Jesus and TJ. 

My introduction to the Anunnaki came from reading about 5 of Zecharia Sitchin's books, several additional books by other authors, watching some related Utube videos, a few associated web articles and a couple of related episodes of "Ancient Aliens" on TV, all over several (7) years. 

I'd probably suggest that you just start here, it's much shorter and easier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin

Enjoy!

----------


## Deborah K

> I guess that I'm pretty close to TJ's view on the Jesus story. I really like both Jesus and TJ. 
> 
> My introduction to the Anunnaki came from reading about 5 of Zecharia Sitchin's books, several additional books by other authors, watching some related Utube videos, a few associated web articles and a couple of related episodes of "Ancient Aliens" on TV, all over several (7) years. 
> 
> I'd probably suggest that you just start here, it's much shorter and easier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin
> 
> Enjoy!


I've done some research on it myself. Thanks for the added info.  I wouldn't exactly call that evidence though...

On another note:  Are you aware that Bernard Russell was an advocate for global governance and eugenics?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I've done some research on it myself. Thanks for the added info. I wouldn't exactly call that evidence though...
> 
> *Do you have an alternative guess/opinion on how Sumer became responsible for and started all of those human civilization firsts right out of the stone age?
> When the Sumerians were asked about how learned to do all of that stuff, they always replied that the Gods (Anunnaki) taught them. 
> 
> I call that evidence.
> 
> *On another note: Are you aware that Bernard Russell was an advocate for global governance and eugenics?


Yes, I am aware. Russell has been dead and buried for over 40 years. I seriously doubt that he will bite you or endanger your health in any way. To the degree that you know me, you probably know that I'm absolutely *NO* booster of the Fabian Socialists. Have you seen any global governance or eugenics references mentioned in the posted Russell quotes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Wow, that almost sounded like a quote demonstrating humility on the part of Bertrand Russell. I wonder if you can find any more!


"I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
(Bertrand Russell / 1872-1970)

"An educated person is one who has learned that information almost always turns out to be at best incomplete and very often false, misleading, fictitious, mendacious - just dead wrong."
(Bertrand Russell / 1872-1970)

"To teach how to live without certainty and yet without being paralysed by hesitation is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can do for those who study it."
(Bertrand Russell / 1872-1970)

----------


## Sonny Tufts

Russell became less certain about the absolute truth of mathematics.  Compare the following:

"Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty—a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show.”

"I wanted certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious faith. I thought that certainty is more likely to be found in mathematics than elsewhere. But I discovered that many mathematical demonstrations, which my teachers expected me to accept, were full of fallacies, and that, if certainty were indeed discoverable in mathematics, it would be in a new field of mathematics, with more solid foundations than those that had hitherto been thought secure. But as the work proceeded, I was continually reminded of the fable about the elephant and the tortoise. having constructed an elephant upon which the mathematical world could rest, I found the elephant tottering, and proceeded to construct a tortoise to keep the elephant from falling. But the tortoise was no more secure than the elephant, and after some twenty years of very arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing more that I could do in the way of making mathematical knowledge indubitable."

----------


## erowe1

> If you believe that God created the universe, skip the flawed middlemen who wrote the bible and study nature.


There's a lot to be said for that.

God does reveal Himself to us through all of creation. And by studying it, or even making the most casual observations of it that are accessible to all people everywhere, we can know a lot of important things about God and ourselves. We can know with absolute certainty that he exists; that he is spiritual and that the worship of his creatures rather than Him is an egregious error; that he is a person, and both relational and rational, as are we; that other basic moral laws of His such as prohibitions of theft, murder, kidnapping, and sexual immorality, bind us; that he appreciates beauty and love; and many other things.

But the things that God has revealed to all people of all times and places through his creation do not comprise his ultimate revelation of Himself to us. His ultimate revelation is through all the words and works of his own Son, Jesus Christ. And those who do take your advice in the study of creation, and who approach their search for the knowledge of God with honesty will see this more and more as they come to know Jesus.

I won't say that the Bible is the only way to know about Jesus. But it's easily the best. So your advice to skip that middle man is not as good as your advice to study God's works in creation.

----------


## otherone

> God does reveal Himself to us through all of creation. And by studying it, or even making the most casual observations of it that are accessible to all people everywhere, we can know a lot of important things about God and ourselves. We can know with absolute certainty that he exists; that he is spiritual and that the worship of his creatures rather than Him is an egregious error; that he is a person, and both relational and rational, as are we; that other basic moral laws of His such as prohibitions of theft, murder, kidnapping, and sexual immorality, bind us; that he appreciates beauty and love; and many other things.


Goodness. All that from casual observation.

----------


## erowe1

> Goodness. All that from casual observation.


Yes. If this isn't immediately obvious to you, then all you need to do is look at the mental gymnastics people go through when they try to free themselves from the consequences of those truths.

----------


## otherone

> Yes. If this isn't immediately obvious to you, then all you need to do is look at the mental gymnastics people go through when they try to free themselves from the consequences of those truths.




You are more learned than I.  Could you please dumb it down for a Philistine such as myself?   Mental gymnastics?  Consequences?  What does this have to do with casual observation of the world?  If God's basic moral law is evident from casual observation, what was the purpose of the ten commandments?   People "knew" before that, right?

----------


## erowe1

> You are more learned than I.  Could you please dumb it down for a Philistine such as myself?   Mental gymnastics?  Consequences?  What does this have to do with casual observation of the world?  If God's basic moral law is evident from casual observation, what was the purpose of the ten commandments?   People "knew" before that, right?


I don't think that all 10 of the 10 commandments are apparent from general revelation, such as not taking the name of Yahweh in vain. But some of them definitely are, such as not stealing.

It seems to me that God's covenant with Israel in the Torah, or the first 5 books of what Christians call the Old Testament, includes two basic things. One of those was to provide Israel with a set of behavioral boundaries that made them distinct from all other nations, such as circumcision. There was nothing sinful about Gentiles not observing these. The other was to reiterate the basic moral and ethical norms that already existed for all people. The Torah itself supports this I think. It is clear within its own text that some of its moral and ethical norms weren't new things that Israel could only know by way of the Torah itself, but were rather preexisting laws that they and everybody else in the world already either knew they should have been following or ought to have known it.

The first word in post 274 betrays that you yourself have this innate sense for the Creator's universal, transcendent, moral absolutes. You know there exists such a thing as goodness, and that when you require something on which to swear, it fits the bill.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You are more learned than I. Could you please dumb it down for a Philistine such as myself? Mental gymnastics? Consequences? What does this have to do with casual observation of the world? If God's basic moral law is evident from casual observation, what was the purpose of the ten commandments? People "knew" before that, right?


 Well it's now somewhere around 4,000 years AFTER the 10 commandments, so the story goes. 

Would you now say that people "know" after that, right?

----------


## erowe1

> Well it's now somewhere around 4,000 years AFTER the 10 commandments, so the story goes.


What story is that?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What story is that?


 Moses. Got any extra extraordinary evidence, just lying around, for some of those miracles?

----------


## erowe1

> Moses.


Source?

----------


## otherone

> The first word in post 274 betrays that you yourself have this innate sense for the Creator's universal, transcendent, moral absolutes. You know there exists such a thing as goodness, and that when you require something on which to swear, it fits the bill.


It's a language convention.  It was taught.   It's the same with moral and cultural conventions.  They are taught.  There is no universal morality apparent in the workings of the universe.  People are taught a worldview, and that lens colors everything they see.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Source?


  Oh, let's just branch out a bit and share the pain. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11049-moses

----------


## otherone

> Well it's now somewhere around 4,000 years AFTER the 10 commandments, so the story goes. 
> 
> Would you now say that people "know" after that, right?


The question posed was whether each person can know God's commands, and consequences of disobedience to God, solely from observation of nature, without exposure to scripture.   This is not a question of biblical "proof", rather an assertion that a spiritually honest person recognizes the creator and is held accountable for his behavior.  The assertion is based on belief in the idea of an absolute morality that exists outside man.

----------


## erowe1

> Oh, let's just branch out a bit and share the pain. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11049-moses


Could you please quote the part of that which supports your 4000 year claim?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Could you please quote the part of that which supports your 4000 year claim?


Nah, that was just a SWAG estimate without bothering looking it up? Hence the "somewhere around" estimate qualifiers. Don't get all hung up on the meaningless trivia.

----------


## erowe1

> Nah, that was just a SWAG estimate without bothering looking it up?


If it's meaningless trivia, then what was your point in mentioning it? Go ahead and keep the "somewhere around" qualifier. What's your source for Moses being somewhere around 4,000 years ago?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's a language convention.  It was taught.   It's the same with moral and cultural conventions.  They are taught. * There is no universal morality apparent in the workings of the universe.*  People are taught a worldview, and that lens colors everything they see.


Is there a culture which considers murder acceptable? (srs question, I'm not read on every culture out there)  If not, we've struck upon a universal morality of a sort.  Is Ayn Rand's moral axiom really axiomatic (Just an interesting question I wanted to throw at you in case you're interested)?

----------


## Crashland

> Is there a culture which considers murder acceptable? (srs question, I'm not read on every culture out there)  If not, we've struck upon a universal morality of a sort.  Is Ayn Rand's moral axiom really axiomatic (Just an interesting question I wanted to throw at you in case you're interested)?


Different moral questions have different degrees of subjectivity.

----------


## erowe1

> It's a language convention.  It was taught.   It's the same with moral and cultural conventions.  They are taught.  There is no universal morality apparent in the workings of the universe.  People are taught a worldview, and that lens colors everything they see.


But your own behavior and attitude about morality that underlies your thinking at a basic level constantly throughout your life demands that morality is universal. The concept of morality itself requires it. And you know this deep down. It's there whenever you accuse anyone of doing anything wrong, whenever you apologize, whenever you explain some action that might be wrong as not being wrong in a certain case because of mitigating factors, and so on. The entire basis for all moral thinking demands that for you to consider something right or wrong, you must consider its rightness or wrongness to be an objective matter that doesn't depend on your opinion or anyone else's or even the opinions of whole cultures or even the entire human race. It may be that someone is wrong about a moral law, and that what they think is a moral law isn't one at all. But if there are any moral laws (and all of us know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are), then they transcend us.

----------


## James Madison

> Is there a culture which considers murder acceptable? (srs question, I'm not read on every culture out there)  If not, we've struck upon a universal morality of a sort.  Is Ayn Rand's moral axiom really axiomatic (Just an interesting question I wanted to throw at you in case you're interested)?


I think it would be harder to name a culture that has not considered murder acceptable. Maybe the Amish? Murder has always been accepted when done to the sound of trumpets.

----------


## otherone

> But if there are any moral laws (and all of us know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are), then they transcend us.


Quickly (as there is much to respond to), that mankind shares behavioral traits in no way implies that those traits transcend us.   Basic primate behavior has rules and consequences.  That Man over-thinks them is a testament to our intelligence (or lack thereof), not divinity.

_ Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? 
_

----------


## otherone

> I think it would be harder to name a culture that has not considered murder acceptable. Maybe the Amish? Murder has always been accepted when done to the sound of trumpets.


That "morality" fluctuates based on exigent circumstances is the most damning critique of those who believe in it's universality.  Is there a baseline?   Not in human history.  Man is a monster.

----------


## Crashland

> But your own behavior and attitude about morality that underlies your thinking at a basic level constantly throughout your life demands that morality is universal. The concept of morality itself requires it. And you know this deep down. It's there whenever you accuse anyone of doing anything wrong, whenever you apologize, whenever you explain some action that might be wrong as not being wrong in a certain case because of mitigating factors, and so on. The entire basis for all moral thinking demands that for you to consider something right or wrong, you must consider its rightness or wrongness to be an objective matter that doesn't depend on your opinion or anyone else's or even the opinions of whole cultures or even the entire human race. It may be that someone is wrong about a moral law, and that what they think is a moral law isn't one at all. But if there are any moral laws (and all of us know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are), then they transcend us.


Not exactly. Please see:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...56#post5593456

----------


## erowe1

> That "morality" fluctuates based on exigent circumstances is the most damning critique of those who believe in it's universality.  Is there a baseline?   Not in human history.  Man is a monster.


First of all, there is nothing about a universal moral law that would prevent it from including within it allowances for differing prescriptions under different circumstances. In fact, this very quality of morality is a universally recognized one, and as such only further supports the universality of the moral law that underlies this universal recognition.

Second of all, if what you really mean is that people's opinions about morality fluctuate,  then in that case it isn't morality itself that fluctuates, but the opinions people have about it, just like opinions about how to explain natural phenomena fluctuate over time and across cultures. This doesn't indicate the lack of a true law behind these different explanations. And, in fact, in the case of different ways of excusing murder across cultures, this too further supports the existence of a universal moral law. For, without such a law, murder would need no excuse. The fact that people labor to find one, despite their own wishes to be able to commit murder, shows that they find themselves unable to deny that there exists a universal moral law that governs them and not the other way around.

----------


## erowe1

> Not exactly. Please see:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...56#post5593456


Morality, if it exists at all, is not a description of how humans do behave as a result of natural selection or any other cause, but a prescription of how they ought to behave, whether they actually do or not. Furthermore, it won't be difficult for any of us, including you, to spend some time considering the moral laws that we know in our hearts to exist and to bind us, such that when we violate them we do wrong, and to see that these laws may overlap laws of what would be most beneficial to the human race, but that they clearly are not identical to them, and that there are counterexamples where what is right would make the race's survival less likely and what is wrong would make it more likely.

----------


## otherone

> First of all, there is nothing about a universal moral law that would prevent it from including within it allowances for differing prescriptions under different circumstances. In fact, this very quality of morality is a universally recognized one, and as such only further supports the universality of the moral law that underlies this universal recognition.


This is called situational ethics.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If it's meaningless trivia, then what was your point in mentioning it? Go ahead and keep the "somewhere around" qualifier. What's your source for Moses being somewhere around 4,000 years ago?





> Nah, that was just a SWAG estimate without bothering looking it up?


  #2

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That "morality" fluctuates based on exigent circumstances is the most damning critique of those who believe in it's universality. Is there a baseline? Not in human history. Man is a monster.


FWIW, just about every religion has a version of the Golden Rule.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm

----------


## otherone

> FWIW, just about every religion has a version of the Golden Rule.
> 
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm


Thank God!  Otherwise, human history would be RIFE with murder, slavery, pillaging, and warfare!

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Thank God! Otherwise, human history would be RIFE with murder, slavery, pillaging, and warfare!



Things would sure be in a real mess wouldn't they?  Bob LeFevre suggested that only about 5% of mankind is civilized. 

I find it interesting that that is just about the same percentage estimated to be sociopaths.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Could you please quote the part of that which supports your 4000 year claim?


Different source for timeline:




> II. TIMELINE OF EARLY EVENTS
> 
> BIBLE EVENTS BC WORLD EVENTS
> 
> Creation 5315
> In 1996 the earth would be 7311 years old according to the Septuagint (quoted by Christ), based on manuscript 350 years older than the Massoretic text
> 
> First people ? Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth.
> 
> ...


http://www.bible.ca/b-bible-timeline...us-history.htm


Are you ready now to explain the Moses magical mythical mystery metaphysical miracle tour?  Or are you planning to just come up with some more lame excuses not to?

----------


## Voluntarist

> You mentioned Carl Sagan earlier in a post, I believe.  Did you know that he once stated:  "Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence" ?


Yes, he ssaid those words (without the "A" in the first "absence" being capitalized. The context it fit into was to debunk the appeal to ignorance:



> "appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist - and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


In all actuality, "Absence of evidence" is "Evidence for absence" ... it's just not proof of absence.
If you're driving along and you think you hear God saying that "He'll take it from here", don't let go of the steering wheel until you get a lot more evidence and many more observers to the evidence.

----------


## erowe1

> This is called situational ethics.


Situational ethics is one variation of that. But it's in all ethical systems, not just situational ethics.

The existence of consideration for different contexts within a moral law does not mean that the moral law itself isn't universal.

----------


## erowe1

> #2


So you admit that the fact on which your argument was based is false?

----------


## otherone

> The _existence of consideration for different contexts_ within a moral law does not mean that the moral law itself isn't universal.


Who decides?

----------


## erowe1

> Who decides?


Who decides what to believe about morality? All of us do all the time.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So you admit that the fact on which your argument was based is false?


 Dream on Pharisee.

----------


## erowe1

> Dream on Pharisee.


Maybe you just shouldn't be so dogmatic about subjects concerning which you lack the most basic knowledge.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Maybe you just shouldn't be so dogmatic about subjects concerning which you lack the most basic knowledge.



But then I might just become too much like you, no thanks.

Moving back on topic. TJ probably should have spent some time editing and carving on the Old Testament as well. I bet that would have been really interesting too.

----------


## erowe1

> But then I might just become too much like you, no thanks.


You consider prescinding from dogmatism on a subject until you actually know about it an undesirable trait?

Suit yourself.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You consider prescinding from dogmatism on a subject until you actually know about it an undesirable trait?
> 
> Suit yourself.


*"It ain't so much the things we don't know that hurts us, as it is the things we do know that ain't true."*

----------


## erowe1

> *"It ain't so much the things we don't know that hurts us, as it is the things we do know that ain't true."*


Exactly. You should study a subject enough to have disabused yourself of those false facts, especially when they are very basic ones within a subject, before making such dogmatic claims.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Exactly. You should study a subject enough to have disabused yourself of those false facts, especially when they are very basic ones within a subject, before making such dogmatic claims.


Gee, and just think of all of the missed opportunities to provide educational extraordinary evidence while you'd just rather prefer playing cutesy word games. Tsk, tsk.

----------


## otherone

> Who decides what to believe about morality? All of us do all the time.


No.  Who decides when absolute morality becomes no longer absolute?

----------


## robert68

> I missed that exchange-were you pointing to Protestants or the post-Constantine Roman Emperors or what?  Christianity has long been in a very wide diaspora, and it's pretty hard to blame Christianity generally for what specific Christians did.  Regardless, when you pick n' choose from Christian history to make a point, you've already committed the fallacy of reasoning from parts to whole-leaving your conclusions questionable at best.


I dont know what exchanges youve followed. Emperor Constantine is a Saint in your Church and is a hero of your Byzantinist (calling a spade a spade) comrade. Ive discussed Constantine with him before in some detail.

What Constantine did after the Edict of Milan was antithetical to everything libertarianism is about and what Ron Paul stands for. He expanded the empire, started wars, massively concentrated power in the new capital Constantinople, politicized Christianity in the extreme by producing his Obamacare the Nicene Creed at the Council of Nicaea, and began the persecution of those who practiced a religion at odds with his Obamacare. He also btw, murdered his wife and a son. From that point on, the Church and Churchs of Byzantinism (like done in the west), used the state/empire in the eastern Roman Empire and later Russia (starting with baptized military ruler Vladimir I, another Saint in your Church) for privileged treatment and material benefits; all of which are also antithetical to everything libertarianism is about. None of this is a matter of debate among libertarians and those who know what libertarianism is. 

Therere are also things like the monk ownership and terrible treatment of serfs, with no more rights than slaves, in Russia, led by the later canonized hegumen Joseph Volotsky; and Gennady of Novgorod Archbishop of Novgorod the Great and Pskov from 1484 to 1504, also a "Saint", who was instrumental in the persecution of the Judaizers".

----------


## erowe1

> Gee, and just think of all of the missed opportunities to provide educational extraordinary evidence while you'd just rather prefer playing cutesy word games. Tsk, tsk.


Are you willing to be educated? It doesn't seem like it.

----------


## erowe1

> No.  Who decides when absolute morality becomes no longer absolute?


Since it's absolute, nobody has the ability to do that.

Of course, the existence of contingencies within an absolute moral law doesn't make it any less absolute.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Are you willing to be educated? It doesn't seem like it.


I love to learn new things. I always have. But, I've reached a point in my life that I much prefer to learn what I want to know, in my way as much as possible. This usually manifests as a tolerance for institutional BS at just about ZERO.

----------


## TER

> I don’t know what exchanges you’ve followed. Emperor Constantine is a “Saint” in your ‘Church and is a hero of your Byzantinist (calling a spade a spade) comrade. I’ve discussed Constantine with him before in some detail.
> 
> What Constantine did after the Edict of Milan was antithetical to everything libertarianism is about and what Ron Paul stands for. He expanded the empire, started wars, massively concentrated power in the new capital Constantinople, politicized Christianity in the extreme by producing his Obamacare the Nicene Creed at the Council of Nicaea, and began the persecution of those who practiced a religion at odds with his Obamacare. He also btw, murdered his wife and a son. From that point on, the Church and Church’s of Byzantinism (like done in the west), used the state/empire in the eastern Roman Empire and later Russia (starting with baptized military ruler Vladimir I, another “Saint” in your Church) for privileged treatment and material benefits; all of which are also antithetical to everything libertarianism is about. None of this is a matter of debate among libertarians and those who know what libertarianism is. 
> 
> There’re are also things like the monk ownership and terrible treatment of serfs, with no more rights than slaves, in Russia, led by the later canonized hegumen Joseph Volotsky; and Gennady of Novgorod Archbishop of Novgorod the Great and Pskov from 1484 to 1504, also a "Saint", who was instrumental in the persecution of the “Judaizers".


Yes St. Constantine was not a libertarian. He was and is a saint of the Church because of his great love for Christ, his heroic efforts for the Church, and his sincere repentance for the sins he did commit.

----------


## erowe1

> I love to learn new things. I always have. But, I've reached a point in my life that I much prefer to learn what I want to know, in my way as much as possible. This usually manifests as a tolerance for institutional BS at just about ZERO.


Education doesn't work that way.

If you want to be able to answer the question of whether or not such-and-such an event happened in history, and you want to take it seriously, you can't just imbibe some single factoid or pithy slogan from a post on an internet forum somewhere and say, "That settles it." You have to go through a much more lengthy process of building up historical knowledge about what surrounds that event and about the kinds of evidence we have for all of that knowledge. This necessarily involves a lot of grunt work that you apparently find boring and trivial, like paying attention to dates, places, and languages.

Also, most of what I've seen you say here, especially concerning the Gospel of Jesus's death and resurrection, has been the parroting of institutional BS.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yes St. Constantine was not a libertarian. He was and is a saint of the Church because of his great love for Christ, his heroic efforts for the Church, and his sincere repentance for the sins he did commit.


 Jesus told his followers what to do and how to live. "Saint" (so called) Constantine doesn't even come close to measuring up, by a country light year. Sincere repentance, my foot. Here, pull the other one.

----------


## TER

> Jesus told his followers what to do and how to live. "Saint" (so called) Constantine doesn't even come close to measureing up, by a country light year. Sincere repentance, my foot. Here, pull the other one.


So you know the repentance of St. Constantine?  You seem to think very highly of your own thoughts. You obviously do not wish to be educated on anything and in your previous post to erowe make it obvious that you have made your brain to be the judge of what is true or not.  But your brain is quite fallible and indeed quite ignorant.

 In effect, you worship yourself and your three pound brain.  

But the things that come out of your mouth make it quite obvious to many that you are clueless on many things, particularly when it comes to the Christian faith.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Education doesn't work that way.
> 
> If you want to be able to answer the question of whether or not such-and-such an event happened in history, and you want to take it seriously, you can't just imbibe some single factoid or pithy slogan from a post on an internet forum somewhere and say, "That settles it." You have to go through a much more lengthy process of building up historical knowledge about what surrounds that event and about the kinds of evidence we have for all of that knowledge. This necessarily involves a lot of grunt work that you apparently find boring and trivial, like paying attention to dates, places, and languages.
> 
> Also, most of what I've seen you say here, especially concerning the Gospel of Jesus's death and resurrection, has been the parroting of institutional BS.


 We tend to be somewhat hampered and constrained by this medium.  You really have no idea what I know and have learned. Don't confuse the factoids and pith, with what just might be a lazy typist.


BTW, what institution is that?  I'm constantly looking for additional BS purge candidates.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So you know the repentance of St. Constantine? You seem to think very highly of your own thoughts. You obviously do not wish to be educated on anything and in your previous post to erowe make it obvious that you have made your brain to be the judge of what is true or not. But your brain is quite fallible and indeed quite ignorant.
> 
> In effect, you worship yourself and your three pound brain. 
> 
> But the things that come out of your mouth make it quite obvious to many that you are clueless on many things, particularly when it comes to the Christian faith.


 Unlike you, I guess.

I don't really give a frick about the "Christian faith".  Can you tell?  I haven't really tried to hide it.  I've really not seen ANY reason why I should. The Christians don't hold the exclusive trademark and copyright on Jesus. Or much of anything else worthwhile, for that matter. Thank God! Clean up your own house before you get too concerned about mine. Your eye beam can really use some work.

----------


## TER

> Unlike you, I guess.
> 
> I don't really give a frick about the "Christian faith". I've really not seen ANY reason why I should. The Christians don't hold the exclusive trademark and copyright on Jesus. Or much of anything else worthwhile, for that matter. Thank God! Clean up your own house before you get too concerned about mine. Your eye beam can really use some work.


LOL!  I don't claim to have all the answers!  I am quite ready to be corrected. while you wallow in your snarkiness and worship of your brain, too stubborn like a mule to learn!

I accept how limited and ignorant my own mind is, which is why I turn to others who are much more learned and experienced than me, namely the saints of the Church which you have no idea about because you likely consider yourself greater than them.  But you are not!

  You have created your own religion, warrior of truth, which has but one adherent (you) who is the same as the one god of it (you).  More specifically, your three pound brain!  But I don't want to worship your brain and I don't think anyone else (except for you, of course ) does either.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> LOL! I don't claim to have all the answers!
> 
> *My experience of you is somewhat different.
> 
> *I am quite ready to be corrected.
> 
> *Not that I've noticed. Example: This thread.
> 
> *while you wallow in your snarkiness and worship of your brain, too stubborn like a mule to learn!
> ...


*
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." ~ TJ*

----------


## acptulsa

> *"It ain't so much the things we don't know that hurts us, as it is the things we do know that ain't true."*_--Will Rogers_


Good quote.  What happened to the attribution?!

----------


## TER

In your mind, your three pound brain won again!  lol  

Your stubbornness is not worth the time.  Good luck warrior of truth!  See you later!

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Good quote. What happened to the attribution?!


  I didn't know that it was a "Will" quote.  Sorry!  Thanks.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> In your mind, your three pound brain won again! lol 
> 
> Your stubbornness is not worth the time. Good luck warrior of truth! See you later!


Actually I much prefer the descriptions 'tenacioius' and a 'hard sell', but have it your way. < shrug >

Pax vobiscum, my brother. You are forgiven.

----------


## erowe1

> We tend to be somewhat hampered and constrained by this medium.  You really have no idea what I know and have learned.


Yes I do, unless you deliberately make false claims, pretending to think they're true, when you actually know better.

But if that's the case, then it's not really you I'm accusing, but the persona you play for whatever reason. For the purpose of the forum it makes no difference.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yes I do, unless you deliberately make false claims, pretending to think they're true, when you actually know better.
> 
> But if that's the case, then it's not really you I'm accusing, but the persona you play for whatever reason. For the purpose of the forum it makes no difference.


I'm leaving the false forum personas to you.  

What deliberate false claims is it that you think I've made?  

Are you still working on finding that BS institution that I'm quoting?

----------


## erowe1

> I'm leaving the false forum personas to you.  
> 
> What deliberate false claims is it that you think I've made?  
> 
> Are you still working on finding that BS institution that I'm quoting?


I don't claim that they're deliberate. I only claim that in order for you to be as educated as you say you are, they would have to be deliberate. Because it would take a person with no knowledge of the history of Israel to estimate the date of the Exodus and be off by a millennium. The same goes for a lot of the Dan Brown-ish things you've said about the biblical canon and text and related topics. You either believe what you say, and really just don't have a clue about the topics you make dogmatic claims about. Or you do understand those topics, which would mean that you'd have to be deliberately saying things you knew to be false.

I make no pretense of knowing for sure which of those two possibilities is the truth.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't claim that they're deliberate. I only claim that in order for you to be as educated as you say you are, they would have to be deliberate. Because it would take a person with no knowledge of the history of Israel to estimate the date of the Exodus and be off by a millennium. The same goes for a lot of the Dan Brown-ish things you've said about the biblical canon and text and related topics. You either believe what you say, and really just don't have a clue about the topics you make dogmatic claims about. Or you do understand those topics, which would mean that you'd have to be deliberately saying things you knew to be false.
> 
> I make no pretense of knowing for sure which of those two possibilities is the truth.


  I've never read a Dan Brown book in my life. Did you just happen to miss my thread post #302?  How is that?  I think if you do the math you'll see that my SWAG was pretty darned close.  Well inside the accuracy parameters allowed for government work.  BTW, I just rounded to the nearest 1,000 years, because that wasn't really the main point being made.

Got any more specific suspicions?

----------


## erowe1

> I've never read a Dan Brown book in my life. Did you just happen to miss my thread post #302?  How is that?  I think if you do the math you'll see that my SWAG was pretty darned close.  Well inside the accuracy parameters allowed for government work.  BTW, I just rounded to the nearest 1,000 years, because that wasn't really the main point being made.
> 
> Got any more specific suspicions?


You post Dan Brown-ish BS. I don't claim you got it from him. You probably got it from some other hack on an internet forum.

Yes, I saw what you added to post #302 hours after I had already replied to it. I'm not sure why you want to call attention to it though, since it just proves my point. Had you done such basic research as that before pontificating about Moses, you wouldn't have gotten the millennium wrong in the first place.

This kind of building up of basic chronological knowledge is not something you can do just by googling around when a question gets asked. It takes dedicated research.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You post Dan Brown-ish BS. I don't claim you got it from him. You probably got it from some other hack on an internet forum.
> 
> Yes, I saw what you added to post #302 hours after I had already replied to it. I'm not sure why you want to call attention to it though, since it just proves my point. Had you done such basic research as that before pontificating about Moses, you wouldn't have gotten the millennium wrong in the first place.
> 
> This kind of building up of basic chronological knowledge is not something you can do just by googling around when a question gets asked. It takes dedicated research.


A) Here's maybe a scary thought for you, perhaps I just figured it out for myself without any Internet forum hack input.  Novel ideas do happen to come from somewhere from time to time.  Maybe Dan Brown got whatever it was from me.

B) Well since you seemed to have gotten your panties all in a wad over some meaningless trivia. I looked it up AFTER the original SWAG. And guess what? I was right again. Boring isn't it? You don't really seem to have a meaningful point.

C) What was that original specific pontificate again? post # please.

D) What the frick does it matter? Who cares? And you want to educate me? Get real.

E) For my purposes googling works fine. I'm not chasing a PhD in ancient mythology. Perhaps your Bible is just better. Mine don't include historic event timestamps.

----------

