Christianity

[iambiguous]

A Protestant would no that no man "saves souls." A Protestant would know that what you do is between you and God. So whatever you have been, it was clearly not a "Protestant."

And a sensible person would already know he had the thing he was asking for, and was not even willing to look at it.

So it is what it is.

Again, you have what you believe to be demonstrable evidence for the existence of the Christian God residing in Heaven.

I have evidence that God exists. You also have it. But you don't want to look at it.

What I won't do is to invest hours in watching 16 YouTube videos without first receiving from you that which you construe to be the most potent and persuasive evidence. After all, I'm sure some folks here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...could also refer me to countless sources to prove their own claims.

Unless I receive from you an explanation that I deem warrants me expending those hours watching all 16 videos, I'll assume that your refusal here revolves more around the fact that even you know that the evidence isn't really there.

And that's just in regard to me. The far greater mystery is why you don't link others here to your evidence that the Christian God resides in Heaven as surely as the Pope resides in the Vatican.

Please, link them to all of the videos. Perhaps someone will watch them and decide to link me to the most compelling segments in the most persuasive videos. Or at least offer me a reasonable explanation for why they won't.

...you refuse to disclose that evidence to others here.

They can also see the videos. And if they want to know what Christians believe, all they have to do is read my last message.

Again, simply unbelievable.

Here is a list of all the Christian denominations down through the ages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... ominations

Are you actually telling us that unless they accept your own beliefs about what Christianity encompasses in terms of both morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side, they are no less misinformed than I was as a member of the Protestant Community Church on Orville Avenue here in Baltimore?

Or you actually that blindly -- blissfully? -- arrogant. Or, again, are you just putting us on? Or afflicted with a "condition"?

So, reasonably in my view, I ask you to link me to the most compelling video. The one you believe contains the most persuasive evidence. If that truly has an impact on me, I will watch the rest of them.

Compelling" will be the one that impresses you, not me. The videos are basic and introductory...and also very easy and entertaining to watch.

You're the one who, after watching them, was convinced by the segments that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven. Again, you're asking me to spend considerable time watching 16 videos. And I'm asking you to link me to the segments that were able to persuade you to trade in your leap of faith for the knowledge of the Christian God's existence.

That you won't do so speaks volumes here from my frame of mind.

How about this...

Note the best evidence in the videos and describe it to me.

But there's real merit in you doing some investigation of the evidence, for it's clear you know of none. You've said so yourself. So I don't feel inclined to cut your search down to size for you. You need to invest some thought into this, even if you're unwilling.

Again, any of the many other denominations and alternate faiths can assure me of that. I could spend months and months and going through all of their own evidence.

Yes, God saves souls. But mere mortals who believe in the Christian God must bring those who do not over to God. Millions upon millions of Christians insist that unless you do accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior you cannot be saved. You will be "left behind" when Christ returns.

Thus...

"Examples of proselytizing faiths are Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam; non-proselytizing faiths include Hinduism, Judaism, and Shinto."

Proselytize: "to convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another."

Now, again, here you are claiming to have evidence that took you beyond a leap of faith to God to the knowledge that the Christian God resides in Heaven. But you refuse to link others here to that which you deem to be the most powerful proof of all!!

If you believe that, then you should be concerned.

Come on, IC, aren't all of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... ominations

...saying the same thing to you? Won't they in turn invite you to peruse all of the evidence that they have regarding God on both sides of the grave?

...coming back to my own Christian faith some years ago. How, basically, I wasn't a true Christian, a true Protestant...

You've exposed that yourself. You don't even know the gospels, as AJ pointed out. So it's clear you were not the "devout Protestant" you claimed to be...the evidence of that is simply not present.

No, I asked AJ to note anything in the Gospels pertaining to Paul that would convince me that the Christian God does in fact exist.

Besides, in referring to the Christian Bible how are we not back to claiming the Bible is true because it is the word of God and it must be the word of God because it says so in the Bible?

Interesting that even now, you refuse to inform yourself. I don't know what to make of that, except that you have no concern for God or for your own soul. But that is up to you.

Ever and always back to making this all about what you tell us being informed means. Thinking about Christianity exactly as you do.

By the way, I have read very, very few of the exchanges you have with AJ regarding Christianity. Are there ways in which he is not as truly informed as you are?

[Gary Childress]

What do you remember? What stuck with you?

That Jesus was a healer. That Jesus was the son of God. walked on water. fed the hungry. etc. etc. etc.

Are you assuming that was just a story, or that Christ was healer, water-walker, food-giver, etc., and Son of God?

You must surely mean you think it's all a story, right? I can't imagine you mean to admit that all of that was true, do you? Because if you did, then surely your question would already be answered...

Jesus could very well have healed people in unmiraculous ways but I have doubts about him walking on water or being any more the "son of God" than anyone else is. I suspect Jesus was a human being who may have tried to help the poor and wretched but didn't really perform 'miracles' that no one else could. I couldn't prove it. But I see little need to prove that Jesus was the creator of the universe or performed miracles. To be honest, to me, it seems fairer to everyone if God didn't pick and "choose" favorites based most importantly on whether they worship him (or Jesus) or whatever. Not all of us seem to be in a position to really extend such love or worship specifically to Christ. Some of us are angry, bitter, and jaded for various reasons that I perceive as understandable.

[Immanuel Can]

What I won't do is to invest hours in watching 16 YouTube videos

They're very short. You could to it within an hour.

But just watch one, then comment as you wish. Seven minutes. Can you do that?

[Immanuel Can]

That Jesus was a healer. That Jesus was the son of God. walked on water. fed the hungry. etc. etc. etc.

Are you assuming that was just a story, or that Christ was healer, water-walker, food-giver, etc., and Son of God?

You must surely mean you think it's all a story, right? I can't imagine you mean to admit that all of that was true, do you? Because if you did, then surely your question would already be answered...

Jesus could very well have healed people in unmiraculous ways ...I have doubts about him walking on water or being any more the "son of God" than anyone else is.

Okay. I see your position.

Some of us are angry, bitter, and jaded for various reasons that I perceive as understandable.

That's the heart of the matter, isn't it, Gary? You're annoyed at God for your situation. So you've decided to disbelieve in Him. That'll teach Him.

Unfortunately, for you, that means there's nobody to be annoyed at. What has happened to you would be mere chance. There's no point in being resentful, then. There's nobody to blame. And there's no way out, unless some kind of luck suddenly strikes you, or you choose some way yourself to get yourself out of where you are. In any case, there's nobody to blame and nobody to be responsible...but yourself, and perhaps "chance," if it's any more responsive to your complaints than an indifferent universe is.

Or is it more this: that you do believe in God, and want to throw out a challenge to Him to explain Himself to you? That's a different thing...

[iambiguous]

What I won't do is to invest hours in watching 16 YouTube videos

They're very short. You could to it within an hour.

But just watch one, then comment as you wish. Seven minutes. Can you do that?

Yes, I can do that.

Link me to the one that most impressed you.

Though how on Earth could a video that aims to convince mere mortals that the Christian God does in fact exist beyond a leap of faith only be a few minutes long.

Even the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical figure is doubted by some:

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.
There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence.

Raphael Lataster at the Washington Post

Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).

Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.

Agnosticism over the matter is already seemingly appropriate, and support for this position comes from independent historian Richard Carrier’s recent defense of another theory — namely, that the belief in Jesus started as the belief in a purely celestial being (who was killed by demons in an upper realm), who became historicized over time. To summarize Carrier’s 800-page tome, this theory and the traditional theory – that Jesus was a historical figure who became mythicized over time – both align well with the Gospels, which are later mixtures of obvious myth and what at least sounds historical.

The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the “celestial Jesus” theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). Humans – the murderers according to the Gospels – of course would still have killed Jesus, knowing full well that his death results in their salvation, and the defeat of the evil spirits.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.



This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article: https://theconversation.com/weighing-up ... esus-35319

[Gary Childress]

Some of us are angry, bitter, and jaded for various reasons that I perceive as understandable.

That's the heart of the matter, isn't it, Gary? You're annoyed at God for your situation. So you've decided to disbelieve in Him. That'll teach Him.

Unfortunately, for you, that means there's nobody to be annoyed at. What has happened to you would be mere chance. There's no point in being resentful, then. There's nobody to blame. And there's no way out, unless some kind of luck suddenly strikes you, or you choose some way yourself to get yourself out of where you are. In any case, there's nobody to blame and nobody to be responsible...but yourself, and perhaps "chance," if it's any more responsive to your complaints than an indifferent universe is.

Or is it more this: that you do believe in God, and want to throw out a challenge to Him to explain Himself to you? That's a different thing...

I'm very annoyed at whoever or whatever created the universe the way I perceive it being. I do wish I could "teach [it] a lesson" for all the suffering in the universe it has allowed and that it makes necessary even for any living being to survive. However, I also assume no such achievement is possible on the part of a mortal (if there is indeed some sentient--or whatever we should call it--creator of the universe) and that my anger is simply doing nothing other than venting. In a sense, it is a futile act of revenge against whatever is responsible for all the suffering that goes on. Its futility actually reassures me that I am not truly doing harm when I verbally lash out into the ether at the creator. The only harm I can do is to humans and, yes, I even regrettably do that verbally at times (over the Internet), though, I abstain from any kind of physical assault.

[Immanuel Can]

What I won't do is to invest hours in watching 16 YouTube videos

They're very short. You could to it within an hour.

But just watch one, then comment as you wish. Seven minutes. Can you do that?

Yes, I can do that.

Link me to the one that most impressed you.

You have 16. Make your own choice, if, as you insist, you care to be convinced.

Seven minutes. If you won't invest that, then you're not serious. Then we'll talk, if you've got anything to say.

[iambiguous]

They're very short. You could to it within an hour.

But just watch one, then comment as you wish. Seven minutes. Can you do that?

Yes, I can do that.

Link me to the one that most impressed you.

You have 16. Make your own choice, if, as you insist, you care to be convinced.

Seven minutes. If you won't invest that, then you're not serious. Then we'll talk, if you've got anything to say.

Absolutely shameless!!!

It's been months since you linked those videos to me. I didn't exactly bookmark them. Pick out the one that impressed you the most and send it to me. Or is every single video exactly 7 minutes long?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes. I'm sure it's objectively supported by the existence of God that he's an "asshole" and you're not. Otherwise, it would be a mere subjective personal opinion on your part.

Hmmmmmmm. Gary brings up an interesting point.

Hmmmmmmm.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, I can do that.

Link me to the one that most impressed you.

You have 16. Make your own choice, if, as you insist, you care to be convinced.

Seven minutes. If you won't invest that, then you're not serious. Then we'll talk, if you've got anything to say.

Absolutely shameless!!!

It's been months since you linked those videos to me. I didn't exactly bookmark them. Pick out the one that impressed you the most and send it to me. Or is every single video exactly 7 minutes long?

Here are the links he posted for me. I'm not sure if these are the ones you and he are referring to above.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/animated-videos

[iambiguous]

With so much at stake on both sides of the grave...

He claimed to me that his own belief in the Christian God was more than just a leap of faith.

A leap of faith could mean something like: although I have no evidence and feel nothing, experience nothing special in prayer, feel nothing numinous when I read the Bible, never feel the presence of grace of Jesus, I simply decide to have faith in God. Faith is often presented as not even believe and regardless of what is experienced and demonstrated. One has neither subjective nor objective evidence in a leap of faith.

There's a lot of distance between that and
I can prove the existence of God to someone online via words on a screen.

All I can do is to relate how I remember our exchange when he noted that his belief in the Christian God residing in Heaven was not just a leap of faith. I recall noting a comparison between demonstrating that God resides in Heaven and demonstrating that the Pope resides in the Vatican. Then I recall him asking me if I had ever been to the Vatican myself and personally seen the Pope there. Or something along those lines.

Ask him yourself how he makes the distinction between a leap of faith to God and the belief that one can in fact know that the Christian God resides in Heaven.

And again with so much at stake in picking the right God here, how can he refuse to disclose the strongest evidence he has for His existence?

How did he know this? Well, because the Christian Bible said so. And the Christian Bible must be true because it is the word of God. And sure enough he quoted verse after verse about accepting Jesus Christ as one's personal savior. He also linked me to 16 YouTube videos. Which could involve literally hours of viewing. So, I asked him to link me to the video that he believed was the most compelling. If it had an impact on me, I'd watch all the rest of them. He refuses to do so. More to the point, he refuses to do so for all those other than me here whose souls are also on the line.

Well, that seems like a fair request on your part. For him to choose the most compelling to him. On the other hand, compared to years of participation in a religion you have no interest in...it's not a lot of work. Not that you should be interested, but if you are.

As I noted to him, there are many, many, many One True Paths to immortality and salvation out there to choose from. And each denomination no doubt has their own arguments and evidence. Indeed, they could say the same thing to him. Watch our stuff, read our Scripture and you'll See The Light as well.

Please. How difficult is it for him to note a particular video [or two or three] that he construed provides the most persuasive proof that the Christian God resides in Heaven?

But, okay, if they are only a few minutes long each, let him post them one at a time. We can all watch them and discuss the evidence provided.

No, really, if anyone else here had such evidence regarding the existence of a God they believed could be demonstrated to exist beyond a mere leap of faith, wouldn't they be extremely eager to bring it to the attention of others? A transcending font one could anchor one's moral convictions to here and now and be assured of immortality and salvation for their very soul there and then?

Well, again, most religious leaders would suggest participation in the religion and it's practices. Not some data or argument or even a video. That it's not some thoughts in the head but a process of relationship or a process of change in yourself through which one comes to the belief (or not).

Come on. Given all of the different One True Paths out there...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...how do you know which one it really is until one by one you participate with them in the religion?

No, it makes much more sense that those on a particular spiritual path provide us with what they deem to be the most compelling reason -- the most powerful evidence -- why we would choose to do that with their own denomination.

I am sure there are theists who think a few videos or some compelling argument will change someone from non-believer, but I think that's a very small percentage of theists.

Yeah, but isn't IC one of them?

[iambiguous]

You have 16. Make your own choice, if, as you insist, you care to be convinced.

Seven minutes. If you won't invest that, then you're not serious. Then we'll talk, if you've got anything to say.

Absolutely shameless!!!

It's been months since you linked those videos to me. I didn't exactly bookmark them. Pick out the one that impressed you the most and send it to me. Or is every single video exactly 7 minutes long?

Here are the links he posted for me. I'm not sure if these are the ones you and he are referring to above.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/animated-videos

No, as I recall, the videos he linked to me were like a wall of videos staked on top of each other.


Wait, I found them: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

Yes, they are the same videos.

Let him note the most powerful among them and we can all start there.

[iambiguous]

Again, that's fine. If flitting about up in the intellectual clouds is your own way of exploring God and religion, you will always find those here eager to join you in defining and in defending one or another spiritual construct over all the others. If nothing else, you can sound like some expect philosophers to sound. You can even appear particularly erudite to those you wish to impress.

Wink, wink.

And then perhaps one day you'll want to make it all more...existential. Noting for us how your beliefs regarding God and religion actually do pertain to your value judgments and your behaviors in interacting with others. And how you connect the dots between them and what you imagine your fate to be on the other side of the grave. Nothing too specific, of course, but then serious philosophy never really has much to do with that anyway.

“Flitting about in intellectual clouds” is your rhetorical construct, and a bad-faith imposition of your own negative characterization. Once one sees that — and if you were to see it — you might progress somewhat. To understand other people one must drop one’s prejudices.

Again, you were the one who posted this above:

"And then I like voyaging by intellectual skyhooks from one upper region to another."

Okay, you're not flitting about up there, you're "voyaging".

Your designations, which are purely yours, inhibit you from understanding where others locate themselves vis-à-vis the large problem and consideration that is our Christian heritage.

Again, we're stuck then. You wish to explore "our Christian heritage" up in the spiritual clouds. I wish to take the definitions and the deductions down out of the didactic/pedantic clouds and connect the dots existentially between them and these matters:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious convictions
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious paths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious path

You're not. Though, again, you will always find plenty of "serious philosophers" here to play the "It's Academic" game with you.

[Gary Childress]

Well, hopefully, it's not this one that IC is using as a proof of why Jesus is the only true God. I can see why Christians are more comfortable arguing against atheism but I'm not an atheist. If someone can show me evidence that I'll burn in hell just for refusing to "accept" Christ, then I'll see what praise and worship I am able to muster, but it likely won't be much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRyq6Rw ... X&index=15

[Iwannaplato]

All I can do is to relate how I remember our exchange when he noted that his belief in the Christian God residing in Heaven was not just a leap of faith. I recall noting a comparison between demonstrating that God resides in Heaven and demonstrating that the Pope resides in the Vatican. Then I recall him asking me if I had ever been to the Vatican myself and personally seen the Pope there. Or something along those lines.

I guess I would be very hard pressed to prove the Pope resides in the Vatican. I can see how this annoyed you. And I get his point. I suppose if I had a great deal of money I could probably tackle the pope issue, but this money would not help me with the God issue, as far as I know. I'd still need to, as a very rich person, join the religion, perform the practices, etc. With a lot of money I might be able to get some concrete evidence the Pope resides in the Vatican. Hire private detectives, bribe workers at the Vatican, perhaps somehow infiltrate the Vatican. They are quite different problems. Perhaps via underground tunnels the Pope comes in an out of the Vatican and really resides in another part of the city.

Ask him yourself how he makes the distinction between a leap of faith to God and the belief that one can in fact know that the Christian God resides in Heaven.

OK, I will.

And again with so much at stake in picking the right God here, how can he refuse to disclose the strongest evidence he has for His existence?

What if that evidence is personal and not something one can show on the internet? Can you imagine being convinced of something that you cannot demonstrate to others?

As I noted to him, there are many, many, many One True Paths to immortality and salvation out there to choose from. And each denomination no doubt has their own arguments and evidence.

Though again I would stress that most religions are going to suggest participation as the route to belief, not arguments.

Please. How difficult is it for him to note a particular video [or two or three] that he construed provides the most persuasive proof that the Christian God resides in Heaven?

But, okay, if they are only a few minutes long each, let him post them one at a time. We can all watch them and discuss the evidence provided.

I'm not interested. But sure, it could go like that. But you could just start with one and see how it goes.

No, really, if anyone else here had such evidence regarding the existence of a God they believed could be demonstrated to exist beyond a mere leap of faith, wouldn't they be extremely eager to bring it to the attention of others? A transcending font one could anchor one's moral convictions to here and now and be assured of immortality and salvation for their very soul there and then?

Well, again, most religious leaders would suggest participation in the religion and it's practices. Not some data or argument or even a video. That it's not some thoughts in the head but a process of relationship or a process of change in yourself through which one comes to the belief (or not).

Come on. Given all of the different One True Paths out there...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

One, you're assuming that there is one right answer and not all religions do that. Two, you keep saying the issue is of utmost importance. Well, choose by number of adherants, choose randomly. Read shorthand discriptions and choose the ones that sound best, most logical, most appealing. What do you have to lose? I mean, you might have something - it would take time away from other things.

...how do you know which one it really is until one by one you participate with them in the religion?

That question cuts both ways.

No, it makes much more sense that those on a particular spiritual path provide us with what they deem to be the most compelling reason

I don't think that makes any sense at all. You're treating it like a science survey. It seems clear that belief in this area has to do with much that cannot possibly be passed to others as evidence. There are mundane examples of such issues.

Yeah, but isn't IC one of them?

I'll ask. He's said he's not someone who thinks arguments should convert people. I'll ask if he thinks the videos SHOULD convert others.