a) assuming the afterlife exists, and the only proof I can see is the bible. isn't it a bit too circular for the bible to teach of the afterlife that exists because what the bible says? it relies entirely on itself, from what I understand.
Well the concept of the afterlife predates Jesus' Teachings (~30's AD), and as such a clear defining of concepts that we already had is not circular at all.
b) if we need it in the society of the afterlife, why do we have it now, when as you've said before, what we do in this life doesn't matter because we'll be forgiven?
Perhaps God didn't want us to be completely shocked by everything in the afterlife so we can better function when we get there, and thus gave us a primer here? Thats my theory, anyway.
c) I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean that passages that are entirely irrelevant now (again, like eating shellfish!) are going to be somehow relevant when we die? why would this be the case? I'm not sure I understand your ideas of the afterlife, either, because they seem unconventional.
I am just saying that things like the shellfish thing might have just been helpful to the ancient Hebrew people. I mean, not eating certain animals might have helped them evade quite a few diseases, for instance.
but if particular passages are not truthful or misinterpreted because of that, isn't that still kind of undermining? considering people often take the bible at base value and few research into it quite as thoroughly as you, and the bible represents christianity, that seems a little shaky to me. How am I supposed to take the bible seriously as a religious text and evidence of God if the only evidence in the bible has been put together by men, who may not have represented God's/Jesus' teachings all that faithfully?
The wonderful thing about the Bible is that its a collection of books, and that if a book contradicts the other, its simply because the human council that put that book with the other were mistaken in their 4th Century historical research. I believe that the gospels were recorded by people who truly wanted to record what Jesus had to say, and thus I would assume it is accurate.
that's still persecution! withholding education from a certain group is sexist, yes. How is it not at least an indirect declaration of God, if preachers preach God's/Jesus' teachings?
Its persecution, yes, but it is not because of the Bible that it was being done. Withholding education was done long before Jesus came along, that is just how society worked.
And preacher to preacher advice is not indirectly a declaration of God. "Make sure the youngsters aren't dozing off in the pews." is not what I'd call God-declaration-material, but that is the same type of advice Paul was giving.
again, if there are some passages in the bible that we know do not represent God's teachings, how can we take much of the bible seriously? we only know that Paul et al doesn't represent God's word all that faithfully because there's been historical research into it; how do we know that passages describing the afterlife (for example) are any more faithful? because it's so old, we really don't know for sure I guess. :|
Again, the Bible is not a book. Its a collection of books, and thus some books can be more faithfully recorded and true than others.
okay, sure, but that still doesn't answer my question; I was using eating shellfish as an example of how the bible has become outdated. But, you've said previously that what we do in this life is irrelevant because we're all forgiven, so...? does this mean we can't eat shellfish in the afterlife either? because if so, I'm not going.
I have no idea what the afterlife is like for sure, but from what I can tell from what Jesus says, you can probably do what you like there, but the amount of spiritual fulfillment you will have will render whether or not you want to eat shellfish irrelevant.
if everyone technically breaks the holy law, why are they there in the first place? God must have high standards if everyone can break them so easily. why is it so important to not kill/steal/rape from a christian perspective if we're going to be forgiven anyway?
Because there is still the moral of "Treat others the way you want to be treated." You certainly don't want to be killed, stolen from, and raped, do you?
As well, I do believe the holy laws were written specifically for Jews so it can be the perfect environment for Christ to be raised.
For instance, they might have looked down on gay people, cross-breeding with other tribes, and incest so they can still have a stable population of Jews to welcome Christ when he comes. Outside of that purpose, those regulations are meaningless.
However, the morals that Christ taught, "Treat others the way you want to be treated." and many other good ones, are very much applicable to us today.
b) so how do you go about believing in God, especially from the bible? you've disregarded a few parts of the bible now because they don't accurately describe God or his teachings so... what makes the rest of it so believable? especially because there's no modern evidence of God aside from other people believing in him too?
Because the Bible is not one book, and the historical research that went into my findings are much improved than what went into the previous historical research sometime in the 4th Century.
so Paul himself is contradictory. ?_?
Well what I quoted was spiritual advice, what you quoted was practical preaching advice.
what you still haven't answered, which is the most important: how is having God be the answer to creation and the afterlife in any way a better explanation than the ones we have that are backed by evidence (or in the case of the afterlife not existing, lack of)? I cannot understand how believing in God is any more than an argument of ignorance; if you don't know the answer to something, you don't say 'it could be anything!', you say that you don't know. Why is God a better answer than not knowing? is it just because it's comforting?
No, actually, I think its more scientific to believe in a historical document in which someone documents many things about something unknown to most in their personal experiences to learn more about the unknown subject. Jesus' account of the afterlife is a discourse as helpful as a Roman historian's perspective on how Roman life was at the time, or Greek scholar's accounts of diseases that don't exist anymore, etcetera. It is important data that might have come about because Jesus had an unique perspective on reality, and I think it would be unscientific just to disregard someones perspective on reality if the unknown topic in question is personal experience based (the paranormal and the afterlife). Thus, I think it is better to take what evidence and conclusions we have than to throw our hands up in the air and say we don't know when we have what we do.
We don't want to necessarily beat you, though, or, at least, I don't, and I'm pretty sure that for the majority of debating TCoDians, we don't debate for the satisfaction of victory. We just want to engage in intelligent discourse. You giving up doesn't make us happy, it's not a reason to celebrate. Quite the opposite actually, at least it is for me, I can't speak for the whole forum. That one of my debating opponents would concede to me but not my arguments is, well, a loss really. When one debates, one is trying to convince another that a certain viewpoint is correct. If you quit the debate without being convinced, then the debate is lost.
Than debate I shall!
I'm not here for a debate so much as I'm genuinely interested in what people think; it's not often that I can ask lots of questions about religion because most of the time people get offended so I can't ask. :< I'm sorry if I upset you! I'm just... really curious about why people believe.
You didn't upset me, I was just tired.
If you want, you can find God in a lump of coal. Meaningless.
You were questioning if Jesus actually existed. I am saying if Jesus didn't exist, He wouldn't have followers today.
But whether Jesus stands to gain anything is quite irrelevant to the question as to whether God exists. It doesn't say anything about that. Nor does it say anything about his existence even.
It's ironic you claim you get your morals from the Bible when you most likely eat shellfish and don't stone gays. You can't cherrypick your favourite parts from the Bible and claim to be inspired by the whole and claim all of it true. The fact it is so inconsistent sheds doubt on its entire content.
Butterfree's (how did that happen? o_o) reply to these were exactly how I felt on the matters.
But I will add: the Bible, as I have said before, is not one document with one audience.
IT IS A COLLECTION OF BOOKS, AND THE PEOPLE WHO COLLECTED THESE BOOKS WERE A THIRD PARTY VERY LONG AGO USING HISTORICAL RESEARCH OF THE TIMES. Sorry, I wanted to make this abundantly clear so I don't have to repeat myself.
I believe in the gospels as the most historically true, and the ones directed specifically at us. The rest is very shaky in historical trueness, and are directed at ancient audiences (Old Testament=Ancient Hebrews, Paul's Writings=Ancient Churches).
I get the logic but it seems useless to me. I mean, sure, Jesus could be honest, but even if he was honest that by no means proves anything written down in the Bible is sound.
If he is honest, that means his claims of godhood are true, that his claims of the afterlife are true, that his claims of Angels existing are true, and many other things. If he is honest, a lot of things about the afterlife and God are validated.
Oh you can have psychological problems all right. I went to a psychologist too. However, I'm not afraid of admitting my mistakes. I'm not afraid of pretty much anything mental.
That said, it's attitude that really helps in combating any mental issues. It's how you approach it that really matters. I used to have a pretty negative approach, I'm getting much better these days. It takes effort and patience to see things in more positive light. To make sure you're happy with who you are. You think I am infallible in that respect? I sure as hell am not.
The only reason I talk to you today is because I myself know how to keep myself happy and entertained and full of motivation and purpose. And that's still hard, even today.
I am happy for you. ^.^
I think it is paramount! Religion systematically exploits guilt and fear, very strong human emotions. If you appeal to those, you can make people do anything.
My religion fills me with love and enjoyment. I feel no guilt or fear, nor am I pressured into the religion by those (I mean, why would I be afraid of going to Hell if I don't join the religion if I don't believe in it because I'm not a part of the religion?). My religion makes me think my Death is the climax, not the ending.
Can you describe this to me?
Well I'm not saying this is what my faith is based on, or even that it is good evidence, but my mom is a paranormal investigator. She is a pretty skeptical person when it comes to these things, and does through analysis using voice recorders, cameras, etcetra. I think her EVPs (Electric Voice Phenomenon) are pretty convincing, I have watched her record them and didn't see any trickery involved, and the disembodied voices are pretty clear. However, I am not saying this as a debating point, just saying this has better convinced me personally.
Numbers do not exist physically, numbers are a mathematical, formal construct used to explain natural phenomena (i.e. adding one apple to another). But by physically I don't mean trees or tables. I'm pretty sure you know that.
Well, according to mathematical realism, mathematical concepts are actual, real things that are discovered by mathematical studies. I am a mathematical realist, and I believe numbers are non-physical things that exist.
well let's look at your first question to prompt the response, which was, "What makes Jesus more believable then Muhammed?"
You aren't answering anything with that. And you aren't going to keep me from debating, Pwnemon.
