Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Christian nationalism holds that the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles. "Judeo-Christian" seems nonsensical to begin with (Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity and vice versa). Regardless, principles in the holy texts of Judaism and Christianity are so distinctly different than those embodied in America's founding documents that to suggest a link between them is to grossly misrepresent America.Rather than waste time defending against arguments that might not be used, I leave it to proponents to define "Judeo-Christian principles" and provide arguments. Perhaps, each respondent may limit themselves to one or two of their best arguments, and let's do our best to keep it civil folks!
Hi Skeptical one.
Christian nationalism is an oxymoron. Christianity is an international organism. Christ's purpose in coming was in part to break down the walls of race and nationalism. Although I have seen it argued that the US was founded on "Judeo- Christian principles", that is a nonsense. The US constitution was founded on Freemason - Baptist - Unitarian principles which were diametrically opposed to Christian principles. The Plymouth Brethren in its earliest days - save for the very first couple of years in America may have had good Christian doctrines - but this did not last.
However Judeo- Christian philosophy is not nonsensical. Judaism did not reject Christianity. Judaism died out. Pharisaical religion was born to a large extent after the Temple was destroyed in AD 70. Christianity arose out of Judaism - in particular the laws of Moses. I accept there are various views on this yet it is not inconsistent or nonsensical.
Christian Nationalism in my view ought to be left to rot. It is a disease and needs to die. It is opposed to the doctrines of the Bible and to Jesus and Abraham.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Wow!
I disappear for a short time and we get all sorts of imbeciles on here.
The problem with your logic or theology or philosophy whatever you call it is that you commence with the assumption that God or Jesus can be evil.
Yet the Bible clearly describes both God and Jesus as holy.
So if Jesus does curse entire cities to Hell, it is because they entirely deserve it. This however would still remain consistent with God being entirely just and good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
HI Deb-8-a-bull,
The good thing about removing sins is it is not our job. That job belongs to God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
In other words, you don't know. Or you have an answer you want to indoctrinate with.
My question was fair. To ask a question is not wrong. Unless you are priest or even a God - then of course - you don't have to answer. But even God answers questions put to him at times.
But if you think rudeness is the way to run a post on a debate forum - where questions are obviously part of the means of debate, then run your petty little indoctrination class.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The problem of course is that these books have been written. This tends to support the notion that there may be truth to something within their pages.
The mere fact that a book was written is no guarantee that its pages cintain any truth and no truth wuthin a book guarantees that anything else in a book would also be true. The point though is that right or wrong human beings tend to look for comfort in religions and since we both agree that the bulk of religions are man made that means that in the absence of abrahamic religion another sort would almost certainly take it's place. I don't see that your objections are relevant to the thought experiment.
Yes, I used the word "tend", not the word guarantee. My point in a general sense is that "where there is smoke, there is probably fire". And the fact that discussing contingencies on such a hypothetical basis and intentionally dismissing probably the most well known religions seems to be a question that is based not so much on curiosity as spite.
I don't look for comfort in my religion. Yes, I know you will probably disagree with my assessment. But the other point here is that God is not bound by a book. The OT Jews lived for a long time knowing God prior to the book being written. Books record things - but prior to books - people remembered things. And not like Chinese whispers - but really remembered things. We have lost this art today. But in some countries around the world where books are not utilised very much, these stories of the past are remarkably accurate. Books I think provide for education - reading and writing. The Israelite nation had a 50% literacy rate. All males had to read to pass their religious rites. Well before most nations - probably next to China and possibly Egypt - one of earliest education nations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Not sure that I agree. Christianity was well established prior to becoming the Roman religion of the time. It is my understanding that Constantine made a political decision to make it the state religion because it already was so large and spread and getting bigger because of the Roman laws against it and the persecution against it. He made a political decision and for whatever it is worth - it happened. Many in the Christian world including me - think that his political decision seriously hampered Christianity - and has led to its slowing down in growth. And indeed to its divisions in many ways. Just one example is suffice I think. Prior to Constantine - the church never met in established church buildings. They met in homes or at the river or in groups. But they never had the notion to have their own particular church building. The church was known as the people. From that time however - Constantine built church buildings and gave many laws in favour of Christians - - now today many people think of church - and think building - not the people. Constantine reduced Christianity to a religion. What Constantine ought to have done is simply made Christianity legal, allowing them to worship one God and left it as that. It would have been more in line with his Roman background of polytheism.
I think Christianity would absolutely still be the most significant religion today without Constantine - and probably more so. It is after all, the only worldview on this planet which provides real hope and life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I wonder what you are getting at with this question.But this does not answered the question. What then?
Surely you are not asking people to try and particularise the rest of eternity?
My view is quite general. I think eternity is eternal - and I am one of those people who don't like spoilers - save and except in a general sense.
For instance - I know I am going to die. but I don't want to know how I am going to die or when or even where. Others are different.
I take the view that the life we live now is in many ways a reflection of what life is going to be in eternity. I think that for most of us - that life will be lived on earth - doing many of the same things we do now, learning, growing, teaching, loving each other and loving God. I think we will work, eat, and have times of recreation. I think there will be trees and animals and perhaps insects. But the primary difference will be that there will be no sin, no separation from God, no sickness. I also think that in this state that many of us will be praying to God - on behalf of those who are living on the earth. And then I think that when Christ returns - we will be glorified and that the new heavens will descend to the new earth and then a new journey will begin.
I imagine that God created an entire and vast universe for a reason. It may well be just to establish his glory and handiwork. It may well be that he wants his children to explore and to do good - for the rest of eternity learning etc. I don't think we will get bored. Nor will we become sick of living in this way. I think I am over generalising - but to be honest - attempting to particularise eternity is far to bold for me to do.
I do think that worshiping God is an end in itself. I also think that living with unity with God is an end in itself. But having said that, I take the view that for God it is not just about the end, but also the process or the means of getting there which is important as well. Consider Jesus' response to Satan when Satan offered him all the people and nations in the world. If the end was the only thing - Jesus could well have just taken it all then. Yet, he chose to say no - because the means of getting to the end was not in his mind - worth it.
What next - or what then? Particulars or generalisations. What do you want?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The problem of course is that these books have been written. This tends to support the notion that there may be truth to something within their pages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I think the fact is many Christians don't read the bible and many pastors or preachers have never been taught about heaven. I have studied degrees at theological colleges and heaven gets mentioned - but rarely ever articulated on very much. Many Christians take a simple approach - they trust God knows best and believe that whatever heaven is like - it must be better than here. That for many is the scope of their understanding - and so far as it goes - I don't find that a bad thing. It does not satisfy me - and interestingly, it would not have satisfied the early Christians nor most Christians throughout history. It really is a rather modern notion that heaven has disappeared from our minds and hearts.I've done similar threads, and disgusted is indeed correct: confronted with the idea of what happens in paradise EXCLUSIVE of the fact that you're not being tormented eternally, believers have an exceptionally difficult time answering this one. And none of them, even the ones that do answer, are even remotely the same. Some make it sound like the greatest vacation ever, others say you're a disembodied spirit who sings all day and doesn't remember their family.
There really are not that many books about heaven written. Yet I take the view that the Bible really does give us heaps of information - and we really need to start to get our heads around it because there are so many wacky ideas around. Gee just look at this topic - and see the loopy ideas.
I mentioned awhile ago in another post that in the modern west we often see Heaven through the lens of the Greek philosophy. Yet the Bible clearly talks about heaven always in conjunction with the earth. And to a new heaven and new earth. The Bible is not anti-material like the Greeks were. the human was born of the earth and breathed into by God. The human is both heaven and earth born. It is hence quite distinct from the Greek ideas of spirituality - being anti - body or anti- earth.
Paradise means walled garden - I suggest referring back to the now guarded Garden of Eden. It is a picture of perfection. Of a world without sin - without death - without evil and sickness. I suggest it talking about heaven - with the Garden of Eden - as the original heaven on earth. A fore picture of the new heaven - the city of Jerusalem descending to be on the new earth.
More to come.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Also - I was not talking merely about Christianity - religion in general and I believe though I may be mistaken that other religions existed prior to Christianity, even in England.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Actually Christianity went to the UK in the first century and even the Catholic church records UK bishops attending to the ecumenical councils prior to 6th century.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I suppose because it is not a belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Paradise obviously (well in my view) is a reference to the garden of Eden. It was where God dwelled on earth in the beginning.
After the fall, it was shut and an angel or cherubim was left to guard the door to ensure that no one could get in.
I think that Paradise is part of the current heaven that Christians go to when they die. It is a place. It is physical or material. And it is a lot like earth as we understand it. I say part - because I am not sure it is the whole.
It is not however the same as the eternal heaven which has not yet been made. After all there will be a new heaven and a new earth.
the Bible has lots to say about both of these types of heaven. the current heaven and the eternal heaven. There are similarities and differences between the two.
more on that later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think I have answered this before. I think everyone on this planet believes that their morality is correct. Otherwise they would think otherwise. Hence it is probably fair to say that for many people morality is subjective. Most people - if not all people - decide for themselves what they believe is right and wrong. I say this was the result of eating the forbidden fruit. We as a general rule are not content to believe that someone else - In particularly God, can decide what is right and wrong, we want to do it ourselves after having thought about it for a while, using whatever source we so decide is the correct one. Hence secularist think such things are decided by reason or evidence they see, others look to a holy book, others to intuition, others to the starts etc. Of course, if morality is truly subjective - then all of these sources must be correct, because that is the nature of subjectivity.
Yet, once we start down the path of pure subjectivism, we soon realise the idiocy of such a journey. After all, if morality is truly subjective, then no one really has the right to suggest that anyone else's morality is incorrect, wrong, bizarre, or odd. Everything is permissible. Yet we could not live or function in such a society. There could be no rules or laws or ways to enforce such rules. What is mine suddenly becomes everyone else's who wants it and likewise - life and human rights become nonsense.
So practically, it could not work to really have subjective morality - despite the fact that many people are drawn to it. Once people are themselves confronted by it - and it hits them personally - they tend to take a less subjective point of view. All communists I know - lose full identity with communism when I ask for the money in their wallet or to sleep with their wife. Why? Because suddenly people move from subjectivity to wanting to rely upon a more objective position.
So I think the question of morality is more complex that asking whether it is either / or subjective / objective.
It appears that all people take the view that morality is subjective personally. Yet we all in general accept that there are seemingly objective principles which are necessary in order for society to function properly. On one hand we all want to be philosophers and be all wise - and on the other hand we want to be scientists and nail down every objective fact. Science requires hard objective facts. Philosophy does not. Morality seems to be a mixture of both.
This is why I am happy to conclude that God's subjective morality is objective morality for the rest of the universe - while acknowledging that every person is going to subjectively do what they think is right or wrong. But something are always wrong. there is no right reason for an adult human to have sex with a two month old human. There simply is not any right reason to do so. Yet people do it - tragically and I would add evilly. And I don't think that there could be any good justification for doing so. You might take a different view.
I suppose we could speculate. After all, what good reason was there for dropping a nuke on Japan? To end the war. To save millions of lives. The end justifies the means. Utilitarian morality. An alien might say to an adult male - how much do you love this world? Would you rape this child? and if you do so - I will spare the world from extermination. Would that be justification? I would say no. But I dare say - some might think the end justifies the means.
but that is the difference. Morality. What is it based upon? How do we measure it? I could say - that without God people cannot be moral. But all of the non- theists would jump up and say - we are moral people. Do they mean subjectively or objectively? How do they determine that morality? According to whom? or what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Of course it is moral. Everything is moral. The question is not about whether it is moral, but about whose morals are we talking about?
Created:
Posted in:
According to Blackstone, murder, theft, perjury, etc.
But I would add civil laws relating to negligence when people violate people's home during the night verse how they do so at day time. The laws are essentially taken directly from the OT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
While it is true that the US constitution forbids such an overt thing as to uphold religious ideals or discrimination - the US is still a common law nation with common law principles and rulings. As such - it cannot avoid the fact that many of its laws are based upon religious doctrines. Go and get a copy of Blackstone's commentaries. These are the most famous legal commentaries in Common Law history. It provides interesting reading.
Similarly, in Australia we have a constitutional position which forbids the government making laws to establish any particular religion - and yet the head of our government, the queen of the commonwealth MUST be a protestant. Not only that our constitution - clearly invokes God in its preamble - making it without doubt a religion document. Nevertheless, many including our high court justices - regurgitate the notion that we are a secular nation.
To be honest, I am not sure how they figure this. Constitutionally, we clearly are not secular. On a pure concrete numbers of population basis we are not. Our laws - as long as they remain - under common law deny it. Yet, we repeat it and repeat it. So it must be the case.
What makes a nation religious? Its constitution, its laws, its majority of persons? Great question - and the answer is: none. Our nation is secular because some people say it - and it gets repeated. I think this makes a mockery of the people and of our laws and our constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Not that difficult. Most of the questions were framed with a bias. Take for instance the questions relating to a holy book. I might well believe that the bible contains answers to some questions on morality - but not because it is a sacred or holy book. It also is not exhaustive. If it were to ask the question - as to which sources do you come to an understanding? - then my answer might well entail all. As it was put - though I could not answer any question - save as the one which humanists without God would probably answer. Hence it is really an unhelpful question. Also look at the question on government - is this a question of what we think ought to be the right way - or in particular circumstances - an ideal or - what? I could not answer the question - because it simply was inaccurate.
We live in countries - mostly - (in the West) where the prevailing civil laws are built on religious premises. This is fact - we don't have to agree that they are good or bad - but it is a fact.
I just found it a very unhelpful survey.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
Your anger and spite makes me glad I am no atheist. After all, if you are correct and I am wrong, I would prefer to live in la la land than reflect anything that you are.
It makes no sense to be so angry and full of vitriol if you are correct. You should be full of joy, humour, laughter, etc. And from that joy, peace, love etc, you should demonstrate that life as you understand it is so good that no one would seriously want to resist it.
Yet, whenever I read your posts, I just think crazy old angry man who must have been hurt and abused by someone in the church. I would almost feel sorry for you because of your pain - but your anger and shouting just turn me off.
Of course Jesus reminds me that he loved me when I was his enemy - and he did not turn away from me. In fact he died in my place for my sins. Now although I am not prepared to die in your place for your sins - I know someone who has and who is willing to forgive you. and to give you the peace that you are so longing for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I also think that humanism here is being defined by its modern context not by its historical one. I often claim to be a humanist. I don't see that as being opposed at all to being a Christian. Take many of history's humanists - who did not have an issue either - Calvin, Erasmus, Luther. Bacon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Seriously unhelpful.
It puts people into boxes and makes assumptions that are unhelpful.
It suggests that answers to these questions are mutually exclusive - in many of them anyway.
There were several questions - I could not answer any of the suggested answers.
Seriously unhelpful - I suspect that its prejudices made it so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don't believe that any gods exist.Any questions?
Neither do I - does that make me an atheist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What do you mean by religion? and what do you mean by right? And what do you mean by believe?Why do you believe your religion is right?
I ask these questions because I don't think any religion is right. I do think some religions and indeed most worldviews are wrong.
But that always leads to other questions. How can I tell what is right and what is wrong? What is the measuring tool of such value statements?
And moreover, by what measure are you going to use to determine whether my believe is reasonable or not?
Religion is multifaceted and in my opinion is about humanity wanting to please a deity or deities or other humans in order to have a happy life. I would extend religion on this description to communism, atheism, and other non-theistic views of the world. Of course in those cases it is not so much that pleasing a deity is important as it is about pleasing one's boss or even one self. It is primarily towards pleasing oneself - and trying to have a happy life - whatever that may entail that is the focus.
Hence, while many people try to define religion by reference to a God or a deity - many may find it unusual that I actually distance God from religion. I believe in God - but I don't agree with religion; save and except how James defines it in James 1:27. Yet James' description is not the same as the modern view of religion - nor what I am positing above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Hi this is a great question. I suppose from the title of my topic I would have to say yes. I think evil does exist. Yet, how does it exist is the question. I am not saying that evil is some thing which is like an apple, an object which we can go to or eat. I am not suggesting that evil is a gun which can cause great pain and suffering.
In my OP I suggested that evil was something but not some thing. In other words, evil things happen in our world so that we can observe when these things happen and say that is evil. Or perhaps evil happened. Was Hitler evil? I would say yes. But is he evil personified I would say no. I think paedophilia is evil. I think the act or even the thought behind it is evil. Are pedophiles evil? I would surmise - yes and no. At times they being evil - in thought or in deed but at other times they are not engaged in evilness and therefore are not being evil. Most paedophiles I know, are nice people and decent law abiding, generous people 90% of the time.
I also suggested in my OP that evil is defined not so much by what it is as to what it is not. I used the sense of the absence of goodness. I don't find this altogether satisfactory but it is helpful. Where people stop being good evil will flourish. Neutrality is in one sense the dear friend of evil. I take the view that if people are loving - i.e. demonstrating love by serving others ahead of themselves and in accord with the principles of love - that evil will less likely be something that flows from them. Hence, if a paedophile demonstrates love - for the child ahead of their own interests and desires - then the evil will less likely occur.
Another poster indicated that evil is the actions of people in situations. I am not against this notion altogether. It is not opposed to what I have said and I think interweaves with it quite well. Love and goodness are not necessarily concrete objects - although they can certainly be observed - in may ways in our lives. I do think it is more than an action though - it can be philosophy, it can be thoughts, it can be neglect or omission or recklessness.
I might say that World War 1 and 2 were evil - or perhaps all wars are evil, but I suppose that is overstepping. Sometimes war is necessary. but it is generally not two good sides fighting each other. Good in the sense of considering the other sides interests ahead of their own. Most wars are fought because at least one side wants something out of their own self interest, whether that be wealth, power, revenge, or lust. None of those wars are instituted out of love for the other side.
So to answer your question, I think evil does exist - we just need to be careful how we define it and label it. Keith's views were helpful too.
I think it would be naïve - (at least in my naïve mind) to suggest that evil things do not occur in this world. I think some things are absolutely evil - I know some talk of subjective morality - yet, in what universe could it ever be acceptable for rape to be considered morally good, or in what universe would there ever be a morally justifiable reason for an adult to rape a 6 month old baby? I really don't think it is a relative or subjective situation - it really is just wrong. and yet we know it happens. And that would be the argument - that sometimes, some people think it is justifiable. Yet, I don't see that is as argument at all. I think it just shows how evil and desperate they are.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I will not concede to any such thought. Yet I will listen to what your reasoning is, if you would be so kind as to express it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think the argument simplifies toEvil does not exist, but good does. Evil is only the absence of good. (a parallel is light and dark).Evil appears to exist therefore good does exist.God is required for good to exist.Therefore god exists.is that a fair summary?
I will need to think about that Keith but interesting summary.
Initial thoughts - I am not sure that evil does not exist. I said evil is defined by what it is not. That may mean the same thing but I will need to think about it. Certainly evil does appear to exist - we recognise it when we see it. Or we think we do at least. It seems to make sense that if we recognise evil - and if the definition that it is the absence of good is correct, then good must exist.
To measure whether something is good or evil objectively, implies a measure that is able to do so. Hence it must be more than human. It might be a law of conscience I suppose - though how this might be useful I could not tell. Unless there is a plausible alternative - then a divine person might be the only objective measure. But not just any divine - remembering that the Greek and Roman gods were quite flawed and not much better than humans. It must be a perfect divine figure or principle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
ok.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It is considered a very big no no for an Orthodox to partake in the eucharist if other churches.You say you do not believe that the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.The priest in question is very out of line if they took part in the eucharist.Simply attending your church is a different story. In fact, I take part and even teach bible study at a methodist church and a nonprofit organization that does a bible study. I go to an evangelical church that has a calvinist pastor, and I help out at a church that is done for the homeless outdoors.I can do these things, but taking part in the eucharist? Big no no. We don't even believe it the same way.
I never said that I did not believe the eucharist was not the body and blood of Christ. I said it was not the literal body and blood of Christ. And it is not. The body of Christ is in Heaven, no longer being crucified. Christ intercedes on behalf of his people.
It is the spiritual or covenantal body of Christ - it is really Christ. But it is not literally Christ.
Why would you bother mixing with other churches - in their worship services and not partake of communion? That is hypocritical. Either they are of the body of Christ or they are not? Singing is worship. Praying is worship. Listening to the Sermon is worship. The Eucharist is worship. Reading the bible is worship.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The Christian God is not the same guy as Allah. This is a delusional outlook on the Gods that Muslims made up.
Agreed - except to add that it is not just the Muslims but the secularist and atheist - and many Christians as well.
The God of Judaism (Old Testament) is Satan. The God of Christianity (New Testament) is Cephalus of the Greek Gods. The God of Islam is the future form of the Holy Spirit of Jesus that ends up hating himself. He is also Lucifer.
I don't agree with your first comment. Satan is not a god except in his own mind although sometimes people have referred to him as the god of this world. This however is not the same as saying he is God who made heaven and earth, but rather that he is whom many people follow even without knowing it. Your second statement is incorrect. The Christian God is the same as the OT God who is the maker of heaven and earth. Your third statement is also incorrect about the God of Islam. The God of Islam is not the form of the Holy Spirit in any time or shape. God cannot hate himself. The God of Islam may well be Satan, but he is not the Holy Spirit.
Are you suggesting the God of Judaism and the God of Islam are the same? You use both Satan and Lucifer; which are interchangeable for most persons. Lucifer means light. Some suggest he is Loki after the god for luck.
Thanks for your thoughts. Would you be so kind as to how they have been revealed? Cheers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
but why assume a pedophile's brain is wired up wrongly? Why is it not others who heads are wired up wrongly? And how can we decide what is wrong or right? It all becomes a difficult project. what is normal? Who says what is normal?Really? I mean really? You are incapable of determining whether child rape is right or wrong, what a pathetic excuse for a human being. It's a good thing you have no balls and can't procreate.Why would you not want P to have sex with kids? and why not? So if the P and his friends lobby and get laws into place which allow P to have sex with children, we should see it as only competing actions?You and your friends will never have your sexual proclivities legalized because humans outnumber you.It is wrong not only because of pain and suffering but also because of lack of consent and a whole lot of other matters. I think mostly people talk about subjective morals until it happens to them. It is like the communist who believes everything belongs to everyone - until you steal the money from his wallet. I also think you - mean there is no such thing as objective morality - not morality per se.Well you've proven by this post that you have no morality but rely on the morality of the IPSS who promoted child rape. Read your book.Thanks for your thoughts Keith. I don't agree with you. I think there is wrong and there is right. I think P is wrong and I think Rape is wrong. I think murder is wrong. Yet, I also accept that there is a significant issue with people discussing evil or right and wrong. Especially when it comes to discussing the existence of God or not. After all, if absolute evil does not exist for the atheist - then evil can never be attributed speculatively or not to a hypothetical deity.Creating billions of souls for the express purpose of torturing them for eternity is the epitome of evil, a big shout out to your god.
Ok.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)?Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.I don't really understand. Evil's not a thing? Are concepts not things? I'm pretty sure I've referred to abstract concepts as things before.
I would take the view that evil is not a thing. Is it a concept? Perhaps, but is it a thing? Is love a thing? Is hate a thing? Hate might be defined as the absence of love. But what is love? Is love an action - and hate simply not doing the loving action? Hate can lead us to kill someone - but is hate the action or the fact that you have stopped loving someone and treating them in love? Some might say that love can lead us to kill someone by euthanasia.
What is darkness? Is it a concept? Or is it the absence of light? And what about coldness? We all know what it is - but how do we define it?
I think the verse you described needs to be understood in its context - of the entire chapter. Indeed within the entire book of Isaiah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I haven't been much on the boards lately and mostl6 just reading when I do but this caught my eye.
Nice.
You seem to be misunderstanding or perhaps just miscategorizing this argument. This argument does not bring us to the conclusion that no god(s) can exist but merely that certain proposed deities are logically inconsistent and that therefore these particular proposed deities are unlikely to exist.
Yes, Keith brought that to my attention previously. He said the atheist conclusion should be "no all powerful and all good god" would exist - not any god at all. I don't think I misunderstood the argument presented. I don't have an issue with Keith's re-categorising of it either. But even so, I am of the view that such atheist premises (I am using atheist because I did in my OP ; accepting it may well apply to other views) are not helpful because as I go on to argue - the definition of evil itself presumes that these particular deities must exist. Hence there are logical inconsistencies with the original premises which cannot be relied upon for the conclusion.
I personally do mot generally like the wprds.good and evil since they would seem to presuppose an objective moral standard that I do not believe exists but this particular chestnut is actually meant to illustrate how some theistic beliefs are logically inconsistent and has little to do with atheists as they do not propose any omniscient omnibenevolent being.
Yes, as stated above, I think that is why this particular chestnut is flawed. What it proposes to illustrate in the end actually provides evidence for the opposite conclusion. This is why it would be better for atheists to stay away from the chestnut. It is nice to see your comments.
It also has little or nothingvto do with theist, like polytheist witch, who do not propose that the gods they believe in are omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Let's assume a pedophile's brain is wired-up 'wrongly' so it doesn't judge sex with infants as bad. Let's also assume that such a brain can't be rewired to be normal.So pedophile P wants sex with kids, I want P not to. I can't stop P wanting sex with kids, but I (and people like me) can make it harder for him to do it,by having laws and punishing such pedophile behviour. P can of course lobby for very diffrent laws.Which laws we end up with will not depend on who is 'morally right' because morality does not exist. The laws we get will be the result of a battle of wills between pedophiles and non-pedophiles. Good and evil are competing factions; which side you are depends on accidents of birth and how experience shapes the way your brain is connected.It may seem pedophilia is objectively bad, but if we examine why it seems it's objectively bad we might start with 'it causes pain and suffering'. But that means having to say why pain and suffering are objectively bad. If you try the exercise - going down the levels - you will pretty soon give up and say 'X is just bad,OK?', ie a subjective judgement. There is no such thing as morality - there are only moral judgements.
but why assume a pedophile's brain is wired up wrongly? Why is it not others who heads are wired up wrongly? And how can we decide what is wrong or right? It all becomes a difficult project. what is normal? Who says what is normal?
Why would you not want P to have sex with kids? and why not? So if the P and his friends lobby and get laws into place which allow P to have sex with children, we should see it as only competing actions?
It is wrong not only because of pain and suffering but also because of lack of consent and a whole lot of other matters. I think mostly people talk about subjective morals until it happens to them. It is like the communist who believes everything belongs to everyone - until you steal the money from his wallet. I also think you - mean there is no such thing as objective morality - not morality per se.
Thanks for your thoughts Keith. I don't agree with you. I think there is wrong and there is right. I think P is wrong and I think Rape is wrong. I think murder is wrong. Yet, I also accept that there is a significant issue with people discussing evil or right and wrong. Especially when it comes to discussing the existence of God or not. After all, if absolute evil does not exist for the atheist - then evil can never be attributed speculatively or not to a hypothetical deity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
And although sometimes people might suggest it is a set of bad things - which in many ways is the same thing - we need to define or at least measure good or bad or right and wrong or evil and bad.Evil = the 'set of bad things' works very well in the context of the OP syllogism.1 An all good God would want to eliminate all bad things2 An all powerful God could eliminate all bad things3 Some bad things exists4 therefore an all good, all powerful God does not exist.For us to recognise evil - we must have a measure, otherwise it is simply an opinion. An opinions might be incorrect, but otherwise like someone mentioned in a different place - it is also subjective - to the point that "rape" may not be evil but just that we have an opinion that it is evil.If we accept evolution, our behaviour is the product of evolution. To survive we have to be encourged somehow to do what is good for survival and avoid what is bad for survival. it appears the 'somehow' is that we have evolved a sense for what is good [for survival] and bad [for survival].But subjectively the way we perceive things is as [morally] good and [morally] bad. It is important to note that what we perceive as [morally] good is only an approximation to what is good [for survival]. The match is not perfect because the mapping ws produced by the hit-and-miss process of mutation and natural selection. The relationship between good[for survival] and [morally] good is (after millions of years of refinement) not too bad, but it's not perfect.So when we judge rape as bad it isn't 'just' an arbitrary random opinion with no basis - it reflects evolutions 'best guess' what is good for survival the species, expressed as a moral judgement.As every brain is unique,differnt brains may make different judgements of what is good and bad, and good and how bad. For most humans the 'badness' we feel towards rape is more than enough to block that behaviour, but obviously that does not apply to everyone.
HI Keith,
My topic flowed out of our discussion recently talking about subjective morality. This is why I have discussed "recognising evil" as opposed to knowing evil. As I said then, your words say - you believe in subjective morality - but intuitively you know rape is evil. The problem I see for you - is how to get to what you know intuitively when your believe system contradicts it. Adults having sex with 1 month old children in my view is evil. And you hopefully would subjectively agree, but if someone else says - well it is time humans evolved past this point and concluded that paedophilia is not wrong, but just the next stage in human sexual evolution - what are the measures in place to prevent it from happening? And should we prevent it from happening? Many people in our society think paedophilia is not evil. some very prominent scholars promote it as ok. But it does say that evil is not objectively evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
funny link.
Bad theology but funny link. Redheads have souls. Wow! who would thought?
so evil is not just the absence of good but it has to have the presence of "evil" as well.
I am sure you can explain that - for it does not make sense to me. but thanks for the link. Quite funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How would you argue against this? [accidentally deleted the part where you say evil is something but not a thing, sorry]
First I'd start by pointing out that this is obviously self contradictory and seems to violate the idea that A can only be A, it cannot be both A and B at the same time, so I'd say this starts off on very poor footing. It doesn't take long to get to this, either:
I said evil was not a thing. Rather I acknowledged its apparent existence because people recognise it. Yet, it does not exist in the sense like an object does. This is why I said it was the absence of good. Like darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat. If you cant understand the difference I am not sure you ever will. but darkness is not a thing - it is not created. Coldness is not created either. The hole in the donut comes into being - because of the donut not because it is some thing.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.
It is either a thing or not a thing. Do you have another example of something that's both a thing and not a thing, one, and two, this intimates that god didn't create everything in the known universe, which is what you would go on to argue. Futher:
See above. You obviously don't get it - I suppose there is not much point discussing this with you further. But for the record - God did not create darkness. Nor evil.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil
The standard of morality I presume you're using is the god of the bible. This character commits or sanctions a lot of acts we'd call evil, but you excuse with special pleading and divine command theory (which is again it's moral if god does it, like killing all the babies in the global flood or turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt: these are moral actions because if they weren't god wouldn't do them). That seems an extremely precarious standard of morality. Or maybe it's the ten commandments, of which four pertain to how you talk to god, but zero pertain to rape or slavery or the internet or weapons of mass destruction.
Your presumption. I never mentioned the bible. I am not excusing anything. You are one driving the discussion along those lines. I am talking about evil. Does evil exist or not? If so, how do we measure it? Whether or not the God of the bible is the perfect measure is a completely different question. but for evil to exist - a perfect and all powerful God must exist, whatever and whoever that might be is a different question. but it only raises the question - so what? So if a perfect and all powerful God does exist - then why and how could he allow evil to continue? It changes the question - from if to why. It is a question for grownups - not children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Which atheist?If you start with lies why would anyone believe you. You have no idea what atheists think and as an atheist neither do I, I do know what I think and that is that you are a proven liar.
hi disgusted, sorry this topic has so upset you. It is no lie to say that Atheists often use the old arguments - that I summarised in the op. Richard Dawkins is a prime example. Many others - and I dare say you have too (at least if you are honest with yourself).
Atheists like any other group or groups in this world are full of people who like to think they are unique and individual and no one can work them out. Atheists in general have a common worldview - that is distinct from other groups in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well actually if you understood my logic, the God I refer to MUST be good and all powerful. It is not an either or.The God you refer to is not good. He killed and raped. Get over it. Evil exist in men because it exist in gods.
For us to recognise evil - a perfect measure must be available. Otherwise, we are all smoke and mirrors.
The implication of evil is that a all powerful and all God must exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I think theists don't want hear and definitely not except somthing like this.Are you Ready?If a person kidnapped , tortured , and ate half a dozen kids, well when this person dies he will meet the same thing as the kids he killed.Now its only a assumption.Its only a asumption.Now this is a wild idea , so I'm just going to say it.The jew the Christian the Muslim the atheist , i suspect we are all just ummmmmmmmmmm . Like humans.The same thing happens after death.Crazy right. ?
That's lovely, but why do you think theists don't want to hear this? By the way do you like to hear about sick and perverted things like that? Do you think theists keep their heads in the sand and pretend that nothing bad ever happens? Why? And with respect - you are wrong. Christians typically come from pretty bad situations in the first place - meet Jesus - and then receive power to cope and to deal with these things - not expecting the pain to disappear but to know how to live in the grace and mercy of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
The abilities of a All powerful god.You talk about these All powerful gods like there is only one in the worldHowever if you were talking about ( A mega super gold god ) well thats another story.I myself highly doubt god would be able to make a sandwich.Can you Use another word otherthen " evil " ?Or we can introduce " A SCALE OF EVILESSNESSES " A potato scale maybe ?1 potato is = ummmmmm not that bad. And ten tatos is the worst ever.Then we will discuss the word BAD.But this will be all ( ACCORDING TO YOU. )This is probably the main reason why i don't eat sun dried tomatoes.
Hi there Deb-8-a-bull, thanks for your response.
I was not talking about an all powerful god, the atheist was to prove an all powerful god does not exist.
I am talking about evil and its reality. I suggested evil was something but not a thing. Evil is the lack of goodness. Many of us recognise evil - and sometimes we mix it up as being something all by itself. But I suggest evil is defined not by what it is - but rather by what it lacks or by what it is not. for example when we look at a donut we see the donut and we see the hole. But what is the hole in the donut? It is the spot where the donut is not. It is defined by what it is not. I suggest that evil - is the lack of where good is.
And although sometimes people might suggest it is a set of bad things - which in many ways is the same thing - we need to define or at least measure good or bad or right and wrong or evil and bad.
For us to recognise evil - we must have a measure, otherwise it is simply an opinion. An opinions might be incorrect, but otherwise like someone mentioned in a different place - it is also subjective - to the point that "rape" may not be evil but just that we have an opinion that it is evil.
But once we say we recognise evil - the implication is enormous - for it presumes a measure of perfection. And yes I would suggest it implies a perfect and all powerful God exists. Which of course then begs other more profound questions. Since an all powerful and all God does exist, why does evil exist? This then brings completely new areas for us to focus on - since the question of "if" is now redundant, then perhaps real thinking might be able to progress. I am hopeful even if others remain cynical. But some people prefer to remain in second grade rather than graduating.
Created:
Posted in:
the atheist likes to suggest the following:
An all powerful God could eliminate evil
An all good God would want to eliminate evil.
Evil exists
therefore God probably does not exist.
But the question is - what is evil?
Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.
So what is evil?
Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.
Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.
Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.
There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.
Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.
Therefore evil is a problem for the atheist not for the theist.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil.
Therefore if you recognise evil - this is evidence for God, Not against God.
How would you argue against this?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Thanks for that Keith - I enjoyed watching.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Let me see if I can help. It sounds like above, you ARE a divine command theory person: whatever god does, it has to be right, it literally CANNOT be wrong. Wipe out the whole earth with a flood because your plan went exactly as you foresaw it? Moral, because that's what god did. It's an extreme example, but in essence, divine command theory removes the 'why' anything is moral, and boils it down to 'that' it is moral because god said so. In other words, actions are not in and of themselves moral or immoral, except by divine decree. That's where the dog comes in: if you woke up tomorrow and were sincerely convinced that god commanded you to strangle every dog you saw, then suddenly NOT STRANGLING THE DOG is the immoral act. Your answer seems to be, at least here, that you'd enthusiastically strangle the dogs. A true believer, but I'm glad I'm not your neighbor :). I kid! But then things get confusing for me. You say:
If divine command theory leaves the why out then I am not sure that I am in agreement with it totally. I do take the view that God determines morality - it flows out of his character. Again you seem to be mixing hidden will with revealed will. judgment on the earth came because God kept his word to destroy it if people continued to sin against him. Again you seem to not understand the difference between first and second causes. thank you for attempting to explain the dog. I still don't get it though. Are you saying that on day one you thought strangling dogs was wrong and then overnight you had a dream - where God convinced you that strangling dogs was right? That is contrary to how I understand the morality of God and how I understand his revealing his will to me. In other words, it is nonsense. If someone in my church came up to me and said God told me to start strangling dogs, I would report him to the police or have him committed. I would also want to know how he came to this change in his position. God's view on morality does not change - hence why this story makes no sense.
If it is absurd to place our morals onto the morals of iron age shepherd culture (I'm not sure I agree, but more on that in a moment), then why is it not absurd to do the inverse? To expect their morals to comport with our society? Several have pointed out other examples, but let's take the easiest one. Was it ever MORAL to own another person like you'd own a mule? Not was it ALLOWED. Was it MORAL. Or, the central one: is it ever MORAL to send someone to their execution for a crime that you know YOU committed?
I don't think we should take the morality of the 21st century and apply it to other times and cultures as a means of judging them good or bad. It is ridiculous for instance to call Paul an anti-feminist because he thought men only should preach in church. Where actually in his time he was probably more feminist than most of his contemporaries. I think it is incorrect to apply their culture's morality to our own time. You talk about slavery. the bible never talks about owning people like mules. Its slavery was very different in nature to the many other forms of slavery throughout history. For example, a slave could work his way out of slavery - it was debentured slavery. I am not saying it is right or wrong - but it certainly was not the same as owning a mule. I am not sure what you are referring to in relation to sending someone to death for a crime you committed.
Mopac, you are incorrect. She was not punished. She was the victim, the innocent victim here. He made a foolish vow - and then went through with it.As to the story of Jephtha, I'm afraid this seems inconsistent: by divine command, she was NOT an innocent victim at all, she was simply collateral damage. God knew when Jephtha made the vow what he'd send out of the house first, right? It wasn't the goat or the pig. God was certain as author of all things that it was the daughter who'd get burned alive. But it's OKAY. In fact, burning her alive is moral! Because that's what god said would happen. There can be no innocent victims under divine command.
Of course God knew what was going to come out of the house. God did not make Jephtha make this oath. She is innocent and she is collateral damage. But don't confuse first causes / hidden will with second causes / revealed will. Yes, God is the author of all things - but God also gave humanity free will. You keep mixing these things up and conflating what is going on. By doing so - you continue to draw conclusions which are inaccurate and misleading yourself. You either need to take what the Bible says about God seriously and in total or not at all. The bible does put god in control of all things. Yet it also calls God holy and good. To take one thing on hand and then to use it against the others - is inconsistent. It might be a useful tool to attempt to prove the bible is full of contradictions - but only if you are being subjective in the first place. Objective reasoning would attempt to see how they harmonise in the first place before jumping to speculations and then rash thinking.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I used ants because the difference between you and an ant is probably less than the difference between an infinite god and a person. An intelligent robot may be too close to our own level.I don't think one can prove command theory 'wrong'. If it is true then some of our intutions about what is and what is not moral are incorrect. My view is that there is no such thing as morality, which is what moral nihilism really means - morality does not exist.That is to say it is not a matter of whether morality is subjective or objective, absolute or relative. Morality can't be any of those because morality does not exist at all.Consider a rape. The violence objectively exists, the suffering objectively exists, it's forced nature objectively exists. But that it is immoral is a subjective judgement. That is to say it is a matter of objective fact that violence is involved - it is a matter of subjective judgement that it is immoral.Put clearly, morality does not exist - only moral judgements exist. So what makes my judgement that rape is bad correct and a rapists opinion wrong? Aren't I commited to moral indifference?I don't think so. I think rape is bad and I want it to be my view that prevails. I am (and those like me are)in a battle of wills with those who see rape differently and I will do whatever I can to see they lose. But it's not because my opinion is 'has morality' and the rapist opinion 'has immorality' - it is because I want my will to triumph.
Although I am not sure that I agree with thinking it is intriguing. subjective morality - but no objective morality - yet you think rape is bad and you really want your view to prevail. sounds to me like intuitively you know it is objective but can't figure out how to get there.
I would take the view that without God there is only subjective morality. And I would suggest that his subjective morality by virtue of his position makes its objective morality for the rest of us. God tells us rape is wrong. Hence it is part of image, nature, written indeed on our hearts. Some might call it intuition - others subjective morality - but whatever we label it - it is there.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
perhaps it is because we need faith and to grow in it. Perhaps we need to continue to realise that God is the master of the universe and we are dependant upon him. We ask him because he wants to us to tell him - what we want. I don't think that is cruel, even though I know he knows. Often God answers even when we don't ask him. but given that I love God and tell him anything - I don't have any reservations telling him again and again.
This doesn't answer the question about the point of intercessory prayer if god truly is omniscient, and instead, raises more questions than answers. Why does god want us to tell him what we want if he doesn't plan on doing anything about many, many, many of the prayers he hears? How is that not cruel: beg me for mercy and I'll let you labor under the illusion that I might grant it, even though I know already if I do or do not.
I keep going back to this point. It is a relationship. just coz God can do things - does not mean he is obligated to or wants us to simply rely on all of those attributes all the time. If we did - then we would never talk to him. That would not be a relationship. He tells us to pray. Again you seem to be mixing up his hidden will with his revealed will. Nothing that happens could happen without the hidden will of God and this includes the lies and the evil and awful things that happen. God has ordained all things to come to pass and everything he has ordained will come to pass and no one can prevent that from happening. He is the first cause of all things. Yet he does this without sin and with a holy intention. Zeno's paradox with the arrow I think illustrates this well. Yet God also gave people and Angels freedom to make choices - God does not us to be automatons - robots who worship him - he wants people to do so freely and because they want too. Yet, this freedom also meant the possibility of sin - and evil. The Christian message has always been that free will and determinism can only be reconciled in God. Philosophers argue all the time about these two positions outside of the church -because it is impossible to reconcile the two. Hence you position to reject God and prayer on this is somewhat redundant for if you were intellectually consistent you would also have to reject the philosophy of Plato and indeed all other forms of the same.
Of course God knew what humanity would do. it did not stop him because his plan included this - and in the end all of us will see why and simply marvel at his reasoning. man did not invent evil. Evil is not an invention. Evil is just disobedience.
If god's plan included man doing evil, knowing humanity would disobey, then why's he mad about it? It was HIS plan. This is one of the many arguments that opened my eyes to how contradictory all of this stuff is, this one and the talk about how Judas Iscariot burned in hell and was beset upon by demons. Wasn't he only doing what he was supposed to do IN GOD'S PLAN? Why get mad or punish him?
God is holy. God is totally justified in being upset with sin. He is the first cause - but humanity is the second cause - the ones who actually committed the evil and the sin. The fact that God continues to deal with humanity despite their rejection of him is staggering. Remember God made the world and he made it very good. It was man who sinned. We cant blame God for that - even though it may well have been part of his hidden will which cannot be prevented from happening. We don't blame Tolkien for what the golem does even though Tolkien knew what was going to happen.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Intercessory prayer is prayer on behalf of another. But prayer of any type is conversation. I just can't talk to someone and expect them to do what I ask. It requires a relationship. and sometimes what I ask is wrong. praying on behalf of someone else - does several things. Firstly it demonstrates that you care for them. Secondly, it demonstrates that God is the one who can do something about it. But it also acknowledges that you know that God is the one who can do something about it. We don't know what God will do - but we ask - and this enables us to grow in faith.
I have a number of issues here: intercessory prayer is asking god to intercede. Mainly it's the last sentence: how do unanswered prayers enable you to GROW in faith?
When you ask mum for something and she says no, is that not answer? God can say yes. he can say no. He can say wait. Patience is a good thing. Learning to wait - delayed gratification is a good thing. Learning that God has a better plan is a good thing. All of these things are tools that help faith grow.
I'll lay it out a little more clearly. You find out, sadly, that a relative of yours has contracted Alzheimer's. If you believe God has a plan, then he PLANNED for this loved one to contract Alzheimer's, planned for you to be sad about it, so sad that you beg him to change his plan. Maybe. Because you don't know if that plan includes the idea that because your loved one got Alzheimer's, their having it may be the final piece of the puzzle to curing it. THAT could be the plan. OR, he planned for them to get Alzheimer's just because, or for any number of other reasons. Your praying for God to intercede in this plan, his own plan, would mean that you are trying to convince god to change his mind.
The fact that God has a purpose in any situation does not mean that I will ever know what that plan is. Of course I am going to be sad if my mum developed Alzheimer's. Why should I not ask God to do something about it? It might be God's plan for me to pray to change his mind. What I do know is that God asks us to pray to him. I mentioned previously the difference between God's hidden will and his revealed will. I still think that is what you continue to get mixed up. You focus on his hidden will and think we are asking God to change that. He tells us to focus on his revealed will and to respond in accordance with that.
This goes against him having a plan, number one, but number two, if you pray for him to save your loved one and they die, how does this unanswered prayer, with no indication of WHY it went unanswered, make your faith STRONGER? If a human being told you they were going to do something if you asked them to, you asked them to do it, then they didn't do it, didn't explain why they didn't do it, and furthermore you never heard from them again, would you trust this person more or less?
I don't think it does anything of the sort. It makes our faith stronger - because we know God has a better plan that we do. Dying is not the end of the story for Christians. As I said above- prayer is recognising our total dependence on God. It means submitting our wills to his and doing so in a way that acknowledges that he always does what is right. The alternative I think would be a worse strategy. It would fatalistic - because you just have to put up with what ever happens. And everything is random - there is no meaning and there can never be a why. Not that a why is always important - sometimes that just gets in the road - look at the example of Job. Your comparison with a human is not helpful because God is not a human who will lie. And I don't have the issue of God cutting himself of from me and being silent.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I think you are making it all up. I am not even persuaded that you have looked at the bible for yourself.
You take words that I have written - and which I don't deny - but you take them out of context and make them say the opposite of what intended or you do you take into account the way I have qualified it. for example -
I never said one man attending our church makes its the real church
I have not said this in the way you have twisted it.
But for your priest to come to my church - is an acknowledgement that our church is a true church.
I was conversing with mopac. And in my conversation I suggested to Mopac that his priest coming to my church - is an acknowledgement. But now ask yourself this question: an acknowledgment by whom? an acknowledgment from mopac's orthodox priest - that our church is a true church. It is not me saying that one man coming to our church makes it a true church. I certainly don't think any person coming to our church makes it a true church. But for mopac to harp on about the orthodox being the only true church and that his priests would not worship with any but a true church - for an orthodox priest to attend our church is an acknowledgment by him that he considers our church real or true - otherwise he would never have attended. So my point is - don't twist my words around to mean something I never intended.
but twisting words is part of your MO - you cant handle the truth because it bites you at every turn. You have once again failed to provide any evidence - just asserted words are in the bible - I am sure you have been trying to find some - but you cant - and I deny it as well. so thanks for your concession AGAIN.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
It can't be known what really happened 2000 years ago in Palestine, but i think it is very possible jesus was arrested and crucified. It could well be because he had upset the jewish religious establishment, not only for his blasphemy but his anti-clerical criticism of the priests corruption and veniality.
Ok. I agree I was not there either. Historians tend to agree that Jesus did live, was arrested and crucified. I accept the strength of the historians.
Did he upset the Jewish establishment? If one believes the NT witness then yes. Obviously. the Romans had the only authority to kill him, the Jews as a subservient state did not. Why would they kill him? Not for a religious reason. They would not have cared unless it could be tied to a Roman issue. the Jews talk of a king - not being Caesar - is quite probable. So blasphemy from the Jewish quarters is likely. But only if this blasphemy could be tied to a roman issue - such as being insurrection = a king in competition with Caesar. Otherwise no authority or jurisdiction.
If so, it is only surprising that Christianity did not disappear along with its charismatic figurehead and actually gained in strength. The early christians turned a disaster into a positive by portraying Jesus' death as a supreme martyrdom.
Of course it might also be the truth of what they claim. this is plausible as well.
If i had a time machine I would make a bee-line to that time and place! It's tempting to speculate but there's not much point when the truth is unknowable. The faithful can claim to 'know', but their faith means nothing to sceptics!
I would love a time machine. It would so make history such a wonderful thing.
Created: