By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Jesus Christ of Nazareth loves you!

Immortal on 16 September 2012
pezus said:
Immortal said:
pezus said:

Against societal norms? 


Uhm, yeah? I'm not sure what you'd take an issue with here. This specific part isn't even condescending, just a description. I mean atheism is against religion and most of society is religious, right?

I didn't take an issue with this, it's just strange to imagine societies where atheism is not in the majority. Because in the society I live in more and more people are leaving the church every year, and many who are still "with" the church don't believe at all or could call themselves Christians in any sense of the word.


You probably live somewhere in Western Europe, right? Please try to not be as deluded as most of the people around here and think that Europe is the entire world. It really bugs me how ignorant Europeans are about the rest of the world while living here. (Not trying to be mean to you, by the way, just venting, :P.)

I'm pretty sure that in most of the world, the "religious" (horribly vague term since religion in Europe is utterly different from religion in Asia or anywhere else, but it'll have to do) are still the vast majority. It seems weird to me, too, personally, because very few here would really outright say they believe in God, but that feels like a pretty evident truth to me.



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

Around the Network
Jay520 on 16 September 2012
ninetailschris said:
Jay520 said:



Okay, a few questions.

1.) There are untrooths with Islam? How Do you know? Have you studied Islam to know if its true or not?

2.) If you have studied Islam, then what are the untrooths of Islam?

3.) I have studied Christianity with an open-mind and I think its false. Therefore, can I safely say Christianity is false?

4.) What if I study another religion with an open-mind and find that religion is true? How would I be able to know for sure?


1. The problem with Islam unlike The bIble is that it has things that directly go against  historal truths on certain events. For example, in islam it says Jesus didn't die on cross. This is historial proven to not be true by scholars and historians. A man of name Jesus Christ of Nazareth was in fact killed on cross from reports. we even know who was the person that killed him on the cross EXACTLY.

2. The problems is that Islam Scholars themselves will admit that they haven't done any real research into the origins of the Islam. PLUS it known that Islam leader Muhammad got his information on Jesus YEARS LATER from actual events. Muhammad also got his source from third hand person basically hear-say. 

3.What have you stuided? Name them books or people?

4. History and strict research with constant questions to people who disagree and agree. See how your arguments stand up against others. 

Your argument could be replace with how do we know anything is true?


1.) Fair enough, I was just interested in seeing why Islam was false.

2.) See above

3.) Condoning Slavery, condoning raping, etc are just some of the things that contradict with the Christian God being loving, fair, etc.

4.) So, belief in the right God, and the fate of your eternal life, is dependent upon your ability to reason? So, if you have difficulty reasoning logically, and accidently pick the wrong religion, or no religion, then you are going to Hell with NO hope of leaving. You are there forever. You're punished for something you havd no control over. And you have no chance of changing yourself. Again, this contradicts with the idea of a fair, loving god.



Immortal on 16 September 2012
Scoobes said:

Depends on the society.

I'd argue that most of society whilet being a member of a religion, aren't actually religious.

Also, some religious beliefs end up opposing societal norms. The gay marriage issue in the US is an example.


Depends on how you define religion. Do we say someone who prays at least 20 hours a week is religious or do we say anyone who believes he is religious is religious? I rather lean towards the latter. And I'm not sure how you can have a majority religious society where the majority's social tolerance is opposed by the religion. The Christians in the US who tolerate homosexuality don't have the religious beliefs that homosexuality should be condemned, evidently. As long as most people are Christians in America, Christianity can't possibly be opposed to whatever Americans accept socially.



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

Immortal on 16 September 2012
pezus said:
Immortal said:


You probably live somewhere in Western Europe, right? Please try to not be as deluded as most of the people around here and think that Europe is the entire world. It really bugs me how ignorant Europeans are about the rest of the world while living here. (Not trying to be mean to you, by the way, just venting, :P.)

I'm pretty sure that in most of the world, the "religious" (horribly vague term since religion in Europe is utterly different from religion in Asia or anywhere else, but it'll have to do) are still the vast majority. It seems weird to me, too, personally, because very few here would really outright say they believe in God, but that feels like a pretty evident truth to me.

I live in Iceland. 

Why would I care about the rest of the world, and not my immediate society instead? I just don't look at India, Nigeria or France or Italy as part of my society. The fact of the matter is that I don't see atheists as some people who like to go against societal norms, they are just people who have lost their belief (most likely because it was imposed on them when they had no choice or way of knowing anything different) or never believed to begin with.

And see Scoobes point above. I'd be hard pressed to call many people who claim to be Christians (because that's what their upbringing taught them and how this society was for so long) religious in actuality.

Sorry. I seem to have inadvertently offended you. The Europe comment was really not in relation to anything at all.

Arguing this would really get us nowhere I suspect, but, as far as I've noticed in France, Switzerland, Scandinavia, etc. atheism still isn't particularly inherent. I'm completely okay with atheists who honestly never believed, but most of them seem so violently opposed to religion and are constantly ranting all over the internet that religion is evil that I can't possibly believe that their disbelief has nothing to do with the fact that some people do believe.



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

Immortal on 16 September 2012
pezus said:
Immortal said:

Sorry. I seem to have inadvertently offended you. The Europe comment was really not in relation to anything at all.

Arguing this would really get us nowhere I suspect, but, as far as I've noticed in France, Switzerland, Scandinavia, etc. atheism still isn't particularly inherent. I'm completely okay with atheists who honestly never believed, but most of them seem so violently opposed to religion and are constantly ranting all over the internet that religion is evil that I can't possibly believe that their disbelief has nothing to do with the fact that some people do believe.

You did not offend me. I don't understand how you come to that conclusion lol.

Why do you think it's the majority that rants on the internet? Do you know how many there are who sit behind their computers, don't believe in a god but still don't rant about it? If so, how do you know?

I don't know for sure. But the best I can do is work on all the evidence I get through my experience, right? So far, I've seen exactly zero atheists who aren't actively aggressive towards religious people. Of course, I can hardly say this is conclusive. With any luck, I have another 70 years of life during which I can change my mind about atheists.

Also, I'm just wondering, if you don't particularly care for society and relgion outside of Iceland, why are you even discussing it on here? I mean, you're the first person on here from Iceland that I've seen and right now you're discussing with a majority-American and a few of other nationalities userbase. I would figure that, on here, we are either discussing stuff in the context of America or, preferably, the world at large. With your worldview that you only want to base on the evidence in you local society, what do you hope to convince people who don't live around you of?



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

Around the Network
Scoobes on 16 September 2012
Immortal said:
Scoobes said:

Depends on the society.

I'd argue that most of society whilet being a member of a religion, aren't actually religious.

Also, some religious beliefs end up opposing societal norms. The gay marriage issue in the US is an example.


Depends on how you define religion. Do we say someone who prays at least 20 hours a week is religious or do we say anyone who believes he is religious is religious? I rather lean towards the latter. And I'm not sure how you can have a majority religious society where the majority's social tolerance is opposed by the religion. The Christians in the US who tolerate homosexuality don't have the religious beliefs that homosexuality should be condemned, evidently. As long as most people are Christians in America, Christianity can't possibly be opposed to whatever Americans accept socially.

If someone prays 20 hours a week I'd have to ask how they manage to juggle that with a modern day life

I'd say anyone who actually cares enough about their religion to bother studying it for any significant amount of time (and remaining a part of it) or practicing it as a significant part of their life is religious. There are plenty of people that say they're a member of a particular religion but aren't religious at all.

Anyway, your original point was that atheism was against the societal norm because it was opposed to religion. For the most part, you don't find extreme atheists and when you do it's usually through debate. That's the only societal norm it's opposed to and in some societies/contries, atheism is the norm (e.g. Sweden). I'm simply pointing out that religion or religious interpretation can be just as opposed to societal norms. Religious texts can afterall, be used to either support or discredit any POV.




Get your Portable ID!

Scoobes on 16 September 2012
Immortal said:
pezus said:
Immortal said:

Sorry. I seem to have inadvertently offended you. The Europe comment was really not in relation to anything at all.

Arguing this would really get us nowhere I suspect, but, as far as I've noticed in France, Switzerland, Scandinavia, etc. atheism still isn't particularly inherent. I'm completely okay with atheists who honestly never believed, but most of them seem so violently opposed to religion and are constantly ranting all over the internet that religion is evil that I can't possibly believe that their disbelief has nothing to do with the fact that some people do believe.

You did not offend me. I don't understand how you come to that conclusion lol.

Why do you think it's the majority that rants on the internet? Do you know how many there are who sit behind their computers, don't believe in a god but still don't rant about it? If so, how do you know?

I don't know for sure. But the best I can do is work on all the evidence I get through my experience, right? So far, I've seen exactly zero atheists who aren't actively aggressive towards religious people. Of course, I can hardly say this is conclusive. With any luck, I have another 70 years of life during which I can change my mind about atheists.

That's probably because passive atheists are precisely that... passive  




Get your Portable ID!

Immortal on 16 September 2012
Scoobes said:

That's probably because passive atheists are precisely that... passive  


Surely, you know what I mean, :P. Religion comes up from time to time when you're talking to people, anyway, and, when asking an atheist about something concerning religious affiliation, I have never received any response that can't be equated to "don't insult me" followed by a rant.

Also, while it's a little pointless to argue over definitions, I'd say that, given that religion is a largely personal and psychological thing (meaning that you can't truly analyze someone's beliefs from the outside), someone claiming they're religious is sufficient evidence for them being religious.



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

ninetailschris on 16 September 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
ninetailschris said:

1."History can be re-written and/or fabricated, but present can't. Thus, when it comes to the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, there scientifically is no reason to believe that he actually did perform these miracles. No one can perform miracles nowadays, so why would anyone have been able to do it thousands of years ago? It is physically impossible now, and physics were most likely the very same back then as they are now. For that reason, the Bible, as a source, cannot be trusted. The logic in this source is missing. And claims of a supernatural being cannot be compared to claims of a ruler (Alexander the great). Several discoveries indicates that he indeed did exist and conquered several countries, just like how several discoveries indicates that Jesus indeed did exist. No discoveries other than a book made by unknown authors indicate that Jesus could perform miracles though."

"History can be re-written and/or fabricated, but present can't"

Very invailded argument because we have historians that can tell the difference between someone adding in something and not. There people who take college for 5 years to do this stuff. Your argument is based on ignorance COMPETELY. Do you even know how these people do research? Tell me. Then I will tell you how you have no clue what your talking about because I know how they do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP15Pc2Lljc

"Thus, when it comes to the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, there scientifically is no reason to believe that he actually did perform these miracles."

This is circular argument. If you're supernatural and you do something beyond science then you are likey false? This is incoherent . If your supernatural you are EXPECTED to do supernatural things. If Jesus didn't do supernatural things than he would just be a human thus how would he taken seriously? I

"No one can perform miracles nowadays, so why would anyone have been able to do it thousands of years ago? "

I'm not going to lie I lol'd at this comment. Because how dumb that came out. Jesus is suppose to be the last in the line so OF COURSE you wouldn't expect other supernatural people walking around. Even during the OT days you didn't see anyone having the supernatural powers only those that were in direct contact with God (Broker).  But again if people were walking around doing supernatural things that would discredit Christianity.

"It is physically impossible now, and physics were most likely the very same back then as they are now. "

Aren't you assuming naturalism against the supernatural? Natural laws ONLY apply you natural things. You can't put natural laws against a supernatural being because by very defintion they are beyond the natural world. This is like you living in a 2d world and saying that there can't be shape in 3d because this world is only in 2d and all laws apply to everything here being in 2d. It's a question-begging assumption that goes against the very foundation of what you are arguing against.

"For that reason, the Bible, as a source, cannot be trusted. "

Nope. Just lot's of question begging.

"The logic in this source is missing."

The thing missing here is yours D:.

"And claims of a supernatural being cannot be compared to claims of a ruler (Alexander the great)."

Has less sources and than Jesus/Bible and even has supernatural stuff in it like witchcraft.

You clearly are haven't done any research it's being obvious.

"Several discoveries indicates that he indeed did exist and conquered several countries, just like how several discoveries indicates that Jesus indeed did exist."

Why don't you tell me about all these sources? Name and tell how old are these documents in comaparision to the date of the events? I'm going to enjoy this because I know the answer.

" No discoveries other than a book made by unknown authors indicate that Jesus could perform miracles though.""

Man you got me there it's not like there are secular sources.....~cough~ Josephus  ~cough~.

For anyone questioning Jesus existence and want to know of other selcular sources on Jesus/miracles.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

2."See one thing is true, that if Santa Claus wasn't real, he would have already been disproven many generations ago. But he is real, so you're stuck with him."

Oh man ... you got him. Man we have historians/scholars Christians/Atheist they all agree that Jesus existed and it's not even arguable about it. But man Santa Claus that disproves everything because everyone has historial evidence/ Historial proof from Scholars/Historians. 

Darn you really should how intelligent you really are. Santa Claus WOW didn't exact a 24 grown man to make comeback like that which is fully support by everyone. Here I thought it was 100 percent confirmed with anyone over 14 that Santa didn't exist but apparently no one has discovered this! WOW!  You destroyed his argument and didn't just give a very anti-intelligence response! Hundreds of documents and Secular sources have nothing on that! Darn got a 100 on history didn't you?

3."You can't disprove ghosts either. Nor can you disprove that in a parallell universe there is a being who created God. This is not about the lack of evidence against Jesus as a miracle-performing man, but the lack of evidence supporting these miracles."

First sentence: Yes, you can. Is there only personal experiences? Check. Any documents people having a conversation or interaction with this Ghost with more than 5? Is there constant history of these "ghost". Are these TRUE interactions with this Ghost? Like not some blur or something. Is there historial evidence? 

Second sentence: What the heck does Parallell universe have to do with God? Your just saying something over the top to amke something else seem over the top. No one is claiming something that is  that extreme for God or Jesus. Theis is an obvious red-herring 

Third Sentence: Really seems like the the lack of logic and research on your part.

 

Dear Lord...


Let me ask you this: If we found some old scriptures made by unknown authors which claimed that vampires indeed did exist hundreds or maybe thousands of years ago, would you believe in these scriptures?

Using your twisted definition, those scriptures would contain indesputable facts.

We know the name of a lot of the authors. Again showing that you can't even do basic research? Have you even read a book on ANYTHING dealing with historial existence of Jesus? Oh.... wait you didn't because then you would being up a claim like you did in first sentence.

"Using your twisted definition, those scriptures would contain indesputable facts."

You completely ignored all of my arguments and my question on how they do there research and find out what is true and not because you obviously have no clue how they do it.

You avoid all of my arguments. Avoided all of my questions. All of my counterpoints.

You are admitting you have no clue what your talking.

Answer my questions/counterpoints or just don't respond because this isn't even a conversation it's just trolling at best.



"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max

ninetailschris on 16 September 2012
Scoobes said:
ninetailschris said:
Jay520 said:
DaRev said:

Nope, truth is truth, there cannot be more than one truth, truth either agrees with truth or its not true or all the truth. You don't have to study every religion, pal, just study the true one. If you think the true one is, e.g. Islam, then go study that, which I'm sure if you did, WITH AN OPEN MIND you would run into some untruths. Christianity on the other is truth, study that WITH AN OPEN MIND, and I'm sure if you did you you will only find truth. Truth it is better to love your fellow man, truth!

Now, because Christianity is truth, there is no need study anything else, because you have already found the truth, so why look for it somewhere else? E.g if H2O = Water or E = mc2, why you going to look for that truth again, when you already found it?



Okay, a few questions.

1.) There are untrooths with Islam? How Do you know? Have you studied Islam to know if its true or not?

2.) If you have studied Islam, then what are the untrooths of Islam?

3.) I have studied Christianity with an open-mind and I think its false. Therefore, can I safely say Christianity is false?

4.) What if I study another religion with an open-mind and find that religion is true? How would I be able to know for sure?


1. The problem with Islam unlike The bIble is that it has things that directly go against  historal truths on certain events. For example, in islam it says Jesus didn't die on cross. This is historial proven to not be true by scholars and historians. A man of name Jesus Christ of Nazareth was in fact killed on cross from reports. we even know who was the person that killed him on the cross EXACTLY.

2. The problems is that Islam Scholars themselves will admit that they haven't done any real research into the origins of the Islam. PLUS it known that Islam leader Muhammad got his information on Jesus YEARS LATER from actual events. Muhammad also got his source from third hand person basically hear-say. 

To be fair, similar arguments can be made against Christianity. The bible as it currently is was collated in 325AD. There were many more texts that refered to Jesus but these were disregarded by a group of fallible humans with their own bias 325 years after he died. This is not even taking into account the material that may have been lost in translation. For instance, the virgin birth may not be as miraculous as orginally thought as the Hebrew word translated to "virgin" could also be used to mean "young woman".

The 4 gospels in the bible are also estimated to have been written 60-100 years after Jesus' death meaning a big gap in first hand knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles#Historicity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

Every Religious text has inconsistencies with historical and archaelogical consensus. Singling out Islam when the bible contains inconsistencies is just plain wrong.


60-100 years isn't hard to lose track with because it can easily be passed from one generation to the next. This is why scholars don't question is it reliable as people at the thing. The society at the time was a collectivist/low-context society they were train were rasied to never mess up on quoting and to be able to send the message for years. 60-100 years is very easy for the type of society it was. You're viewing them as your society were we can't remember anything and write everything down is common mistake with people who don't look into the societies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJpBKmeLW_Y&feature=plcp

^ Suggest you watch and try to absorb what I'm saying.

"

Every Religious text has inconsistencies with historical and archaelogical consensus. Singling out Islam when the bible contains inconsistencies is just plain wrong."

You just make a claim...but didn't give an example? I'm not going to agree to claim obviously so give me example in Christianity. I already know about others so don't bother with the Islams/Hindu/ etc because I can tell you why there not reliable as the bible.

 





"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max