AS Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

If your beliefs are entirely personal and you are unable to defend them against criticism, then don't post them on an open forum and expect nothing but praise and agreement. Just as you have every right to post your beliefs here, I have every right to challenge them and your interpretation of a text. And doing so is in no way disrespectful, as I have tried to explain to you before.
The fact is, the authors are not speaking to you and never intended to. I assume that you are a good a decent person. However, what the Bible teaches is not good and decent. There are some vaguely moral points here and there in the NT, but they all have some little flaws derived from the heavily religious context of the time. Any good teaching is tainted by dogma surrounding it. And anything good you can find can be contradicted by a statement somewhere else, a problem that arises from compiling works of different authors that said RADICALLY different things and trying to claim they were all on the same page.
I have not been arguing against your faith, I simply want to know what people belive and why they believe it. You imply that your beliefs come from the Bible, but whenever I ask you or any other Christian to elaborate on that and explain where in the Bible you find these beliefs, all I get is a post like the one above, implying that my disagreement with you that the Bible is divinely inspired is somehow disrespectful.
Both positions are not valid. I am not claiming that my position is absolute and immune to challenge. I come to threads like this for the specific purpose of challenging my ideas. And, again, I am disappointed.
I accept your concession.

So do you. So what?

I do not wish to change their path, I wish to understand how they came to it in the first place. I have asked you to explain your beliefs in the context of the Bible, but you never actually mention anything from the Bible. You simply restate the same emotional pleas over and over again. I'm looking for examples from the Bible and an explanation of how you interpret a given example. I never get any of that from anybody (most haven't read it, just verses here and there). I am trying to understand the reader (you), but you exlude the book your are reading from your explanation.

Yes. Everybody has an agenda in everything they do or else they wouldn't be doing it. Although I think she has misunderstood my agenda.

First, I'll have to confess that I don't know the historical evidence. Some who have studied have told me it exists, and none who have studied have told me the existance of Jesus has been disproved. The argument, though, reminds me a bit of creationists trying to attack the theory of evolution: "show me your intermediaries!" Looking back at the past is always going to be incomplete. There is no proof in what is missing, only in what exists.

Lack of proof that something doesn't exist is not proof that it does. Like I tried to explain to another poster, not believing that X exists is not the same as believing X doesn't exist, those are to separate claims. I don't believe the claim that Jesus existed, but I never said that I believe that Jesus didn't exist. I keep asking why you believe the claim and you still haven't even attempted to answer me. If you believe it just because you feel like it, then say so and stop wasting my time with claims that you have evidence to back up the claim. It is perfectly valid for you to believe something based only on your own faith, but the instant you try to say that anything outside of your own head supports the claim (i.e. the Bible), then your are making a claim of testable evidence. I am not going to bash your faith. You can't argue against faith, it is believe without evidence. But you keep saying you have evidence and, in effect, are stringing me along.

I never implied my beliefs came from the Bible. But, you would have had to read me in other threads and other times to know that. I don't post here that often. Sorry if I seemed to take the quick way out. It isn't that I am wholey uninterested in the debate, its more that I don't have time for it. Everything in life must be prioritized, and I feel like I've been there, done that, and never gotten anywhere so why do it again when there are a million other priorities calling at me. Every so often I jump in hoping to provide a little better understanding of where those like me come from, but it honestly can't be done in the type of time I can spend on it, so sorry for basically teasing and running. I respect the amount of time and effort you have put into the questions, and I respect the conclusions you have reached. I don't hold onto facts like you do; I study, I conclude, and then I let the information that led to the conclusion leave my mind to make room for other things, retaining only the conclusion. That makes me a horrible debator in these forums, where everyone else lives and breathes facts and information. An inherent difference in approach that just is. I can only say that my way of dealing with information works quite well for me in real life (in my career and working for my children's schools) although it does frustrate my AS son, just as it is sure to frustrate you.

I wish I hadn't given away the books and did not have aphasia. I am trying to remember the name of the Jewish historian who wrote about what he heard about Jesus, and all that comes up is Herodatus (whose works I read in college) and Ibn Ben Battuta. Sheesh.

I am not the one who claimed to base belief in the historical evidence.

OK. As short as I can put it, because I do have a work deadline. I feel I have seen proof that God exists. Very personal proof; not something that can be transferred to another. Not a born again moment as some Christians describe; much more subtle. But I felt the truth of it. Beyond that, my faith is, to me, more a matter of culture. Like celebrating Christmas because you grew up doing so. But reading the Bible has worked for me in difficult times in unusual ways that made me believe it really was a living, breathing book capable of amazing things. I do believe it is a "good" book, and that is based on personal experience. I have at various points in my life studied it intently, and stared at some passages with disbelief, but accepted that some parts have no use outside of their historical context, while others do. I can't cite them back because my gift is not in memorization; it is more abstract, in being able to reach difficult solutions quickly and see connections that others may not. But once reached, I let go all that led to it; its just how my unique mind works. My life now doesn't lend itself to the study and, thus, not to the debate, either. I have a job, a husband, two children - one with special needs, and I actually need more than 8 hours of sleep a night. There just isn't time. I wish there was, because I hate leaving it hanging, but there it goes.

You may be thinking of Flavius Josephus??? He was an Orthodox Jew who wrote around 70 CE. The common passage that apologists cite from his work does talking Jesus, however, this is a known addition to his work by later Christians.

If this is who you are talking about, I could expand on the problems with the passage in question, if you like. It is time consuming or I would do it anyway.

You keep talking about taking teaching from the Bible, so I thought you were taking your beliefs from there as well. I'm still not quite sure what you believe.

There is the part I was looking for... You believe based on personal revelation. That pretty much ends the debate, although we could go on forever about the Bible being a "good" book.
I can respect that, even though I can't understand it. Personal revelation is the brick wall I always run into in such discussions, frustrating as that is.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/ ... idence.htm

http://dappledthings.wordpress.com/2007 ... of-christ/

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/eas ... josh2.html

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/resu ... christ.htm

I don't have time for a more thorough reading of these links just yet, but they all appear to be Josh McDowell apologetics.

I've learned to never underestimate the fear induced by, what is essentially, brainwashing. I was raised Catholic, but I had Jewish father. Up until aroung age 20, I just sort of went along with it, mostly because I've never been the type who likes to make waves. I was happy enough to blindly believe in religion and was in no way searching for a change. But as I grew older and learned to question and think for myself, all of the holes and hypocricy started becoming more and more apparent to me. As a scientist, I could no longer simply disregard them.

At first I really tried to fight for Christianity. I would say things like "well maybe it's just more about the morals," or "it's OK to see the resurrection as more of a metaphor." Eventually it just came to the point where I had to admit that it all is really nothing more than a fairy tale. This was a difficult process for me, and I never wanted to "lose" my faith. It took a lot of reflection and courage to go against the grain. It is much, much easier to follow the heard. But now I feel so much more authentic. The greatest lesson that I have learned is that morals are not uniquely tied to religion. I have a strong inner grasp on right vs. wrong that was not attained through religion. People like to use the "well how do you teach children about morals" reason, but it's hogwash. A child can learn just as easily through fictional bedtime stories.

There really are a lot of similarities between Jesus and Santa. Both are used as tools to teach children how to behave and how to give of themselves. They both have the potential for enriching a child's life, but neither one is necessary as it is the parent's role to be the ultimate teacher. I also believe both to be ficticious.

WHAT??? No Santa??