Total posts: 407
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
It seems we ought to agree faith is pragmatically necessary then once we shed all our assumptions.
I would would agree that faith based on empirical evidence is necessary
for us to function within our perception of reality. Religious belief requires no
such evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I would hold that we need faith in everything unless you can solve the problem of induction, that's the necessary conclusion. How can you be sure your family and friends don't laugh at you behind your back and are simply aliens conducting a trumanesque experiment on you? Even if you think that's unlikely. Its not certain, there's no reason to think the sun couldn't just disappear any moment. Can you show how its a false equivocation? i believe you have an unjustified proposition there.
If
there is no evidence for something I would take that it evidence for absence but
not proof of absence, but then if you take the solipsistic argument nothing
is certain, you can’t even prove the sun exists. As I said it is an argument
killer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
Read my very first post. Im directly talking about atheists who say God does not exist (which are many). Are you someone who believes in nothing? I cant imagine you don't have faith in some things existing. If you do have faith in things existing are you then not appealing to vagueness and probability? At what probability does something become justified belief?
To say everything requires some element of
faith may contain a fallacy of equivocation as there is more than one
definition of faith, there is faith as having trust in a person of thing based
on evidence, then there is religious or spiritual faith that requires no evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I am an agnostic atheist and as such I would never say that a god
or gods didn’t exist as I would be making a factual claim, which would attract
a burden of proof.
I don't think anyone can disprove or prove the solipsistic view of existence; it is also an ultimate argument killer as it eliminates all evidence beyond one’s own existence.
However I am not sure I understand how hypocrisy features in this regarding atheism.
I don't think anyone can disprove or prove the solipsistic view of existence; it is also an ultimate argument killer as it eliminates all evidence beyond one’s own existence.
However I am not sure I understand how hypocrisy features in this regarding atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And you know this how?
The argument doesn’t state that such evidence doesn’t exist,
only that we don’t have access to it and as far as I am aware no such evidence
is available.
Created:
Posted in:
Arguments against God, how about this one.
God wants us to believe in him so he should have provided strong evidence for his existence. We have no strong evidence for his existence, therefore God doesn’t exist
God wants us to believe in him so he should have provided strong evidence for his existence. We have no strong evidence for his existence, therefore God doesn’t exist
Created:
-->
@janesix
Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory, and a bad one.
That is because science doesn’t deal with absolute proven
facts or truths, such a concept would be unscientific. Science is driven by
enquiry and if you have a proven fact then you have the answer and having the
answer would mean you need look no further, this would limit enquiry. That is
why science only has provision for hypotheses and theories rather than proven
facts, science has to keep an open mind that even the most accepted theory may
be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
How do you define religion, I would say it is basically a belief
system that usually relates to a god or gods and that includes a cultural and social
system designed to standardize the behaviours, practices and morals of its believers,
and sometimes unfortunately those who don’t believe.
So I don’t see how you can have a fake one.
So I don’t see how you can have a fake one.
Created:
Posted in:
I don’t really understand why God requires worship, as this
would mean it fulfils some need and if God has needs then he is less than perfect,
as a perfect God would have no needs.
Created:
Posted in:
I was raised as a Christian and educated in a Church of
England school. As to why I stopped believing was simply down to a loss of
evidence for God’s existence. This was probably down to my mother who was slightly
reticent on discussing sexual matters. I remember at the age of about five asking
her how women became pregnant and she said God puts the baby inside them. Then
at the age of eleven I had now become familiar with the biological process and
on discovering how babies are conceived my one bit of evidence for God had
vanished and he went the way of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Tyndale English translation of the Bible exposed the limitations of English when compared to Hebrew and Greek. So the British are more than guilty of a failure in translation. It has exacerbated into a failure of communication.
It has been interesting talking with you but we seem to be communicating
at cross purposes, so I think I am done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Expressing something humorous or sarcastic in a serious manner is a failure in communication.Expressing a death wish to be executed for blasphemy with your tongue-in-cheek because you are British hardly makes it normal.Framing your death wish with tongue-in-cheek as a British idiom because you are British reflects the desperation your country and people are experiencing.
There was no death wish but I agree there is a failure in communication.
Created:
Posted in:
That is an odd death wish to be executed for blasphemy with you tongue-in-cheek. Even risking that for your family would hardly be ideal.
A possible misunderstanding, the term “tongue-in-cheek” refers to a humorous or sarcastic statement expressed in a serious manner. I don’t know what nationality you are but I’m British and it may be a British idiom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So wanting to stay alive keeps you honest about religion.
My comment about being executed for blasphemy was intended
to be tongue-in-cheek, but the only thing I would risk my life for would be my
family and certainly not some belief or lack of, or any ideals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Since you never participated in those religious debates suggests they were unreceptive to your debates. What is plan B?
The same as plan A, which to put simply, is
not to try and debate religion with those who may be uninterested, offended or execute
me for blasphemy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If you believe and have real objection with religion when it causes harm, is intolerant and tries to use coercion impose its beliefs on others, then debating it will only increase animosity in those whom you feel wouldn’t be receptive to them.
I don’t believe, and my objection with religion when
it causes harm, is intolerant and tries to use coercion impose its beliefs on
others seems reasonable unless one is a member of the Spanish Inquisition. And as
I said, I don’t debate religion with those who would be unreceptive to that debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I pray (to the simulation creators) that you find Humanism.
I had a close friend, sadly deceased, who was a Methodist
lay preacher, he didn’t like the term atheist and so always called me a Humanist.
I don’t think my views are that dissimilar.
Created:
Posted in:
I was a member a few years ago, it was a decent forum, this
one seems based on it. I remember I stopped visiting it because some idiot was
bombarding it with endless pointless posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Atheism is simply "Intelligence". Jim Bakker believes in God. Stephen Hawking did not believe in God.
Doesn’t always follow, I remember debating with an atheist
who was also a Moon landing denier.
Created:
Posted in:
I am an agnostic atheist and although I may not always
respect people’s beliefs I try to respect their right to believe them. My only real
objection with religion is when it causes harm, is intolerant and tries to use
coercion impose its beliefs on others.
I wouldn’t necessarily want an atheistic world and I feel such a word would be unrealistic as religion in some form has been with us from the dawn of humanity, but I would like a secular one that allows for all religious beliefs or disbelief and the right to practice them.
I will debate religion with those open to debate and are willing to discus it, such as in a forum like this but I wouldn’t want to thrust my views on those who I feel wouldn’t be receptive to them.
I wouldn’t necessarily want an atheistic world and I feel such a word would be unrealistic as religion in some form has been with us from the dawn of humanity, but I would like a secular one that allows for all religious beliefs or disbelief and the right to practice them.
I will debate religion with those open to debate and are willing to discus it, such as in a forum like this but I wouldn’t want to thrust my views on those who I feel wouldn’t be receptive to them.
Created:
Posted in:
For anyone interested The Biblical flood story probably had
its origins in the Sumerian poem The Epic of Gilgamesh
The story concerns a man named Utnapishtim and briefly is as follows:
The gods had become angry at mankind so they sent a flood to destroy them. The god Ea, warned Utnapishtim and instructed him to build an enormous boat to save himself, his family, and all living things. This he did and brought all of his relatives and all species of creatures aboard the vessel. The gods then brought rain which caused the water to rise for many days. When the rains subsided, the boat landed on a mountain, and Utnapishtim set loose first a dove, then a swallow, and finally a raven, which found land. After this the god Ishtar, created the rainbow and placed it in the sky, as a reminder to the gods and a pledge to mankind that there would be no more floods.
The entire epic may be found here and the flood story is in Tablet XI
The story concerns a man named Utnapishtim and briefly is as follows:
The gods had become angry at mankind so they sent a flood to destroy them. The god Ea, warned Utnapishtim and instructed him to build an enormous boat to save himself, his family, and all living things. This he did and brought all of his relatives and all species of creatures aboard the vessel. The gods then brought rain which caused the water to rise for many days. When the rains subsided, the boat landed on a mountain, and Utnapishtim set loose first a dove, then a swallow, and finally a raven, which found land. After this the god Ishtar, created the rainbow and placed it in the sky, as a reminder to the gods and a pledge to mankind that there would be no more floods.
The entire epic may be found here and the flood story is in Tablet XI
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Considering it was meant to show stupidity and be an insult I'm glad you agree.
Makes more sense than some guy in a boat stuffed full of
animals sailing on an impossible amount of water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Noah's Ark was a spaceship and the mountain it landed on was actually planet Earth and after it let all the animals off onto the nice dry planet that they arrived at, it flew away and left behind that family they brought to take care of the animals. This is a far more believable story for the atheists they actually might consider this one legit.
Sounds good to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
God sent the flood just 500 years after he created Adam and Eve. There were 10 generations from Adam to Noah.The animals during that time were limited.The Cambrian explosion took place after the great flood. As did the human population growth.Science backs creation.
The fossils found that date back to the Precambrian lack distinct structures as there were no skeletal forms and that means no people. Actually Precambrian life forms would have done okay in the flood as they were all aquatic.
And science doesn’t back creation as there is no empirical evidence to support it and it relies on a supernatural cause, it is unscientific.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
One must always constantly remind ones self that if one happen to come across one of these god thingsone must repeat to it over and over . ' WHAT RELIGIOUS GROUP / RELIGION SHOULD I BE IN.This is pretty much the only thing we need to know.Once the god thing says for example , ' Jehovah witnesses ' is the correct group.You say crap buttt you join the JWUntil then it appears like its nothing more then a guess.Butttttttttttttt.The numbers would say other wise.If you ask every theist on sight. ARE THEY IN THE CORRECT RELIGIOUS GROUP. you would be meet with a 100% yes.Thus concluding to. ' THEISTS ARE BRILLIANT AT SELECTING THE CORRECT RELIGION ' INTO 'RELIGIOUS GROUP .Imagine beliving the Quran is the one true holy book but you are christian.So What comes first.? To the individual, ( Believing in a god thing ) orrrrrr. ( Joining a religious group )The answer to this will provide insight into what is happening.To be more then fair . LETS SAY THERE IS LIKE, 24 DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS GROUPS TO CHOOSE FROM.So IF god doesn't tell ya it is a one in 24 shot.However you don't want to be a Muslim right? So take them ones out.Mormans , Jehovah witnesses. You dont want to be one of them either.It starts looking like people just choose what religion they are and following it to a tea for the rest of their lives.Wich is cool if ya down for that shlt.But again , it appears there isn't noth8ng religious about the way one comes up with what religion. They are.Im happy to leave it at.THEISTS ARE REALLY REALLY GOOD RELIGIOUS GROUP PICKER ERS FULL STOP END OF STORY.Let us now Imagine a mummy christian and a daddy christian having a adorable baby Muslium.Or other.
Not sure how that relates to my post but I will try and address
a few points you have made.
All believers believe their religion is the correct one, although there are those who believe in a god but not any specific religion.
I don’t think people able to choose their belief at will and that also goes for disbelief, it is down to perception which can sometimes be manipulated by indoctrination.
As to a Christian having a baby who is a Muslim, no baby is born with a religion, that is instilled later through instruction and indoctrination. Whether they will continue with that belief is again down to perception and possibly indoctrination. Speaking personally I was educated at a Church of England School but the teaching didn’t hold and I became an atheist at the age of eleven, then an agnostic atheist in my early twenties.
All believers believe their religion is the correct one, although there are those who believe in a god but not any specific religion.
I don’t think people able to choose their belief at will and that also goes for disbelief, it is down to perception which can sometimes be manipulated by indoctrination.
As to a Christian having a baby who is a Muslim, no baby is born with a religion, that is instilled later through instruction and indoctrination. Whether they will continue with that belief is again down to perception and possibly indoctrination. Speaking personally I was educated at a Church of England School but the teaching didn’t hold and I became an atheist at the age of eleven, then an agnostic atheist in my early twenties.
Created:
Assuming God exists and is unknowable that would render all
religious texts relating to God as being worthless. Even the creation of the universe
couldn’t be attributed to God as that would make him known. Therefore it would
be impossible to differentiate between an unknown God and a non existent one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The reason that you don't understand is you'e a 0 debate, 30 post noob who has not immersed yourself in the experience to comprehend how toxicity can affect you.
I’m not new to debate forums only this one, in debate I try
to remain objective and I make a point of not feeling insulted.
Now I’m a 31 post noob.
Now I’m a 31 post noob.
Created:
Posted in:
I don’t really understand why anyone would block someone on a
debate forum, it is a place where you find those whose opinions you disagree
with, that’s the point of it. As for abuse, just ignore it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
We are going by the Bible timeline.The Cambrian explosionThe fossils point to creation, not evolution.
Ah yes, Creation Science, an oxymoron if ever there was one. Thanks
for the link, an amusing read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
God sent the flood just 500 years after he created Adam and Eve. There were 10 generations from Adam to Noah.The animals during that time were limited.The Cambrian explosion took place after the great flood. As did the human population growth.
I think the fossil record would dispute that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Gospels were written in the Jesus generation. It’s accounts are based on eyewitness accounts. The Gospel writers were there documenting these eyewitness accounts.
Oral tradition was one possibility but it would have been rather
unreliable given that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the
death of Jesus
Alternatively, many New Testament Scholars agree that the Gospels were not based on the testimony of eyewitnesses but on the theology of the Gospel writer’s communities.
Alternatively, many New Testament Scholars agree that the Gospels were not based on the testimony of eyewitnesses but on the theology of the Gospel writer’s communities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
That is why we have to rely on the generation that witnessed Jesus, such as the Gospel Authors.
I thought we had agreed that the Gospels are not eyewitness
accounts.
Created:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Addressing the OP.
The Cosmological Argument is possibly the Best.
1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, it had a cause.
3. If the universe had a cause, that cause must be a personal agent.
4. A personal agent caused the universe to begin to exist.
One major flaw in this is that the creator doesn’t need to be God with all God’s attributes; all the creator needs to be is a source of energy. We don’t as yet know how the universe came into being, if indeed it did, but to substitute that lack of knowledge with God is simply a “God of the gaps” fallacy.
Anselem’s Ontological Argument is an interesting one but can it disprove the Biblical God. The argument is as follows:
1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.
Does this disprove the Biblical interpretation of God. Considering that greatest being one can imagine, it seems possible to imagine a being that far surpasses the Biblical God in greatness. So if it is possible to imagine a being greater than the Biblical God would that mean that this imagined entity was God and therefore the Biblical God can’t exist
The Cosmological Argument is possibly the Best.
1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, it had a cause.
3. If the universe had a cause, that cause must be a personal agent.
4. A personal agent caused the universe to begin to exist.
One major flaw in this is that the creator doesn’t need to be God with all God’s attributes; all the creator needs to be is a source of energy. We don’t as yet know how the universe came into being, if indeed it did, but to substitute that lack of knowledge with God is simply a “God of the gaps” fallacy.
Anselem’s Ontological Argument is an interesting one but can it disprove the Biblical God. The argument is as follows:
1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.
Does this disprove the Biblical interpretation of God. Considering that greatest being one can imagine, it seems possible to imagine a being that far surpasses the Biblical God in greatness. So if it is possible to imagine a being greater than the Biblical God would that mean that this imagined entity was God and therefore the Biblical God can’t exist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The myths are stories all on their own and I don't have any idea why people take them and then screw them all up instead of just presenting them as they are. There's plenty of sex, blood, war and violence in them. There's also love stories and hero stories. But they just can't present them as they are they going to screw them all up.
People who produce films and TV programs do it all the time
and not just mythology but many woks of fiction. They take a best seller and because
they are so smart they think they can do better and produce a version that has little
resemblance to the original … hopefully it flops.
Peter Jackson and the Hobbit come to mind. As to mythology, there was the horrible Beowulf TV series.
Peter Jackson and the Hobbit come to mind. As to mythology, there was the horrible Beowulf TV series.
Created:
Posted in:
That still puts the Gospel Authors closer to Jesus than our generation.
Our generation didn’t write the gospels so I fail
to see the relevance,
Created:
Posted in:
The Gospels were eyewitness accounts.To quote Jesus one has to go to eyewitness accounts.
Most biblical scholars date the gospels to have been written
around 68-110 AD, so not eyewitness accounts. The gospel events are believed to
have been acquired from accounts passed on by oral tradition, but then again
they may be total fiction, there is little contemporary evidence that Jesus
even existed, it is all down to faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Religious believers require proof.Jesus is reacting to a request from some Pharisees and Sadducees; they have demanded a miraculous sign to validate the claims that Jesus is the long-promised Messiah of Israel (Matthew 16:1–3).Religious beliefs are based on credible proof. Thomas only believed after he was given credible proof.John 20:24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Quoting the Bible to prove the credibility of the Bible is
circular reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The faith of the believer in a liar and lunatic named Jesus hardly adds any credibility to the believers beliefs.
Religious belief doesn’t have to be credible as it doesn’t require
proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If the bible is not historically accurate and the events in it are fabrications. Then what credibility does the Bible have.
I never said that all the events were fabrication as some
can be verified. The Bible’s credibility is mostly down to the faith of the believer
and what is considered credible may very depending on belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
It forces us to question the Bible as a historically reliable source.
Historically reliable sources are sometimes hard to discern
but I wouldn’t have included the Bible amongst them.
Created:
Posted in:
This is one theory regarding the Exodus story. It is possibly
a contentious theory but I thought it may be of interest. There is a fair bit about
it on the internet for those who may be curious.
During the mid-14th century B.C.E. Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten decreed during his reign that his subjects were to worship only one god and that was the sun-disk Aten. After Akhenaten’s death Egypt retuned to polytheism, worship of Aten was deemed heresy and his worshipers faced persecution.
The theory is that Moses was a high priest of the god Aten, who with a number of his fellow believers fled into Canaan and established a monotheistic religion there.
During the mid-14th century B.C.E. Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten decreed during his reign that his subjects were to worship only one god and that was the sun-disk Aten. After Akhenaten’s death Egypt retuned to polytheism, worship of Aten was deemed heresy and his worshipers faced persecution.
The theory is that Moses was a high priest of the god Aten, who with a number of his fellow believers fled into Canaan and established a monotheistic religion there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Sucking wine from a sponge would have even lessened the amount of wine available to Jesus which would have made Jesus declare it is finished even sooner. That only further weakens your case.
Okay, we seem to be arguing in circles. I think I have done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
It isn’t a matter of questioning his teachings it is the
fact that people are able to place their own interpretation on them.
As to this “But why he stopped is made clear in john 19. The drink he received was not enough to keep him going. They should have offered him a larger wine cup filled to the top.” It isn't made clear, where in John’s gospel does it say that the drink was not enough and that they should have given him larger wine cup filled to the top? It doesn’t, it is fabrication. He didn’t even drink from the cup, he sucked the wine from a sponge.
As to this “But why he stopped is made clear in john 19. The drink he received was not enough to keep him going. They should have offered him a larger wine cup filled to the top.” It isn't made clear, where in John’s gospel does it say that the drink was not enough and that they should have given him larger wine cup filled to the top? It doesn’t, it is fabrication. He didn’t even drink from the cup, he sucked the wine from a sponge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Jesus never said his mission was finished. Which explains why he promised to return.
But why he stopped is made clear in john 19. The drink he received was not enough to keep him going. They should have offered him a larger wine cup filled to the top.
John 19:30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
You forget the night before Jesus asked god to take away the wine cup he was drinking from.
So you can image how badly he needed a drink after going through the crucifixion process. But the people underestimated his level of alcoholism and that left Jesus under spirited to continue the good works.
Matthew 26:39 And He went a little farther, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.”
There is nothing definitive there; it all seems to be speculation
based on personal interpretation.
For example, you say “Jesus never said his mission was finished. Which explains why he promised to return.” This is an argument from ignorance. Failing to say his mission is finished puts you in a position of not knowing, it doesn’t equate to him promising to return.
It is one of the reasons I don’t consider Jesus to be a great teacher, if your teachings are open to interpretation then you have failed to accurately convey your message.
For example, you say “Jesus never said his mission was finished. Which explains why he promised to return.” This is an argument from ignorance. Failing to say his mission is finished puts you in a position of not knowing, it doesn’t equate to him promising to return.
It is one of the reasons I don’t consider Jesus to be a great teacher, if your teachings are open to interpretation then you have failed to accurately convey your message.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Jesus never said his mission was finished. Which explains why he promised to return.But why he stopped is made clear in john 19. The drink he received was not enough to keep him going. They should have offered him a larger wine cup filled to the top.John 19:30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
I don’t know where you are coming from with his “needing
more wine” it seems like an attempt at a metaphor and a rather obscure one so at
that. I don’t think there is a Biblical reference to give it any substance.
Jesus said “it is finished” so hardly a promise to return, quite the opposite.
The fact is he didn’t fulfil the proficiency in Isaiah 2:4 and it is one fundamental to him being accepted as the Jewish messiah, to say he intends to do it when he returns at some unspecified time is something of a cop out, I doubt the Jews would accept that and I don’t blame them.
Jesus said “it is finished” so hardly a promise to return, quite the opposite.
The fact is he didn’t fulfil the proficiency in Isaiah 2:4 and it is one fundamental to him being accepted as the Jewish messiah, to say he intends to do it when he returns at some unspecified time is something of a cop out, I doubt the Jews would accept that and I don’t blame them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Perhaps the New Testament was written to include the fulfilment
of those prophesies simply to establish the claim that Jesus was the Messiah.
To say he fulfilled the Messianic prophesies, what about this one:
Isaiah 2:4
He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
Looking at the history of Christianity quite the opposite was achieved.
To say he fulfilled the Messianic prophesies, what about this one:
Isaiah 2:4
He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
Looking at the history of Christianity quite the opposite was achieved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
No, I hadn’t forgotten that Jesus was a Jew and it was Paul
who preached to the gentiles.
Regarding the Jews crucifying Jesus, crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, the Jews stoned people to death. From what we now know about Pontius Pilate, he was a cruel and ruthless individual and if Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah he would have had no hesitation in executing him for treason.
The reason the Jews didn’t covert to Christianity is that their faith was in Judaism, people’s religious faith tends to be strong and they tend not to change it, that makes them difficult to convert.
Regarding the Jews crucifying Jesus, crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, the Jews stoned people to death. From what we now know about Pontius Pilate, he was a cruel and ruthless individual and if Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah he would have had no hesitation in executing him for treason.
The reason the Jews didn’t covert to Christianity is that their faith was in Judaism, people’s religious faith tends to be strong and they tend not to change it, that makes them difficult to convert.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I don’t think even the most fervent anti-theist would wish
that on God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I agree that some people do seem to credit advanced beings
with high levels of daftness as the Bible certainly doesn’t seem to credit God
with a high level of intelligence.
I find it slightly bewildering that some people believe that God as he is portrayed in the Bible is the creator of the universe as we perceive it today.
I find it slightly bewildering that some people believe that God as he is portrayed in the Bible is the creator of the universe as we perceive it today.
Created: