Religious

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

You underestimate Boxcar. Like everything else, it requires no thought. The truth can be found in the Bible. Somewhere, I'm sure.

I guess it pays to not think too much when it comes to these things. Why ask yourself these troubling questions, when you can just put logic aside...and believe everything you read?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Boxcar doesn't stop to think of how difficult it would be even today for someone to prove that he is indeed "God"...or even the "SON" of God. I mean...if a person appears today and starts preaching that he is "the Way, the Truth and the Life", and that "no one goes to the father except through him"...how many people would actually BELIEVE him?

Answer - Tens of thousands. These two men filled the same niche that Jesus did.

[YT="Menachem Mendel Schneerson"]R8AmPz9CORg[/YT]

[YT="Satya Sai Baba"]YlL_CDqFCLg[/YT]

[Actor]

Who did the women see at the tomb?

• An angel - And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matthew 28:2
• A young man - And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. Mark 16:5
• Two men - And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. Luke 24:4
• Two angels - And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. John 20:12

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Boxcar doesn't stop to think of how difficult it would be even today for someone to prove that he is indeed "God"...or even the "SON" of God. I mean...if a person appears today and starts preaching that he is "the Way, the Truth and the Life", and that "no one goes to the father except through him"...how many people would actually BELIEVE him?

Why do you apparently accept the Gospel accounts of what Jesus preached and claimed to be (whether you believe those claims or not), but refuse to accept the supernatural acts and the prophetic record described in those same accounts that bore witness to and validated his claims? And why do billions of people today (not just Boxcar) believe those accounts in their entirety? Have ALL those people failed to critically examine the evidence, or to exhibit the required degree of skepticism about the Bible's claims -- and not only them, but countless others in the last 2,000 years, including those who were much closer to the actual events; who would have been in a position to dispute and refute them if they had not happened; and who were willing to die for their testimony rather than recant it? That's far more difficult to believe.

You have a right to believe whatever you choose, but it strains credulity beyond the breaking point to believe that all those people (including those at the time of the founding of Christianity who witnessed or personally knew of the events described in the Gospels) were/are essentially unreasoning idiots or mindless dupes.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Overlay

it strains credulity beyond the breaking point to believe that all those people (including those at the time of the founding of Christianity who witnessed or personally knew of the events described in the Gospels) were essentially unreasoning idiots or mindless dupes.

There is no credible evidence of anyone witnessing any event described in the Gospels. Furthermore, the Gospels are at odds in their descriptions of those events. You would think they could have at least compared notes. I guess the compilers never believed there would be such a thing as fact check.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Why do you apparently accept the Gospel accounts of what Jesus preached and claimed to be (whether you believe those claims or not), but refuse to accept the supernatural acts and the prophetic record described in those same accounts that bore witness to and validated his claims? And why do billions of people today (not just Boxcar) believe those accounts in their entirety? Have ALL those people failed to critically examine the evidence, or to exhibit the required degree of skepticism about the Bible's claims -- and not only them, but countless others in the last 2,000 years, including those who were much closer to the actual events; who would have been in a position to dispute and refute them if they had not happened; and who were willing to die for their testimony rather than recant it? That's far more difficult to believe.

You have a right to believe whatever you choose, but it strains credulity beyond the breaking point to believe that all those people (including those at the time of the founding of Christianity who witnessed or personally knew of the events described in the Gospels) were essentially unreasoning idiots or mindless dupes.

You are forgetting that Christianity is not the only religion out there...and that the bible isn't the world's only "Holy Book". There are several highly esteemed holy books out there...and their readers and followers number in the many millions. Why should I believe the Christian version over the others? Is there any credible proof out there to suggest to me that the Christian version of things is any more convincing than the other major religious beliefs?

To believe that Jesus actually existed and said the things that he reportedly said is one thing; to actually believe that what Jesus said is the undisputed truth, is something else altogether.

I'd rather believe the Buddha, who said..."don't believe what tradition, scripture, or even I, have to tell you. Believe only in the things that you can verify by your own personal experience. Be a lamp unto yourselves".

[Overlay]

That's your opinion, and, as I said, you're entitled to it. But it still leaves unaddressed the questions of why (if the Gospel accounts are a total fiction) they were not refuted and rejected long ago (including during the time when contemporaries to the described events (including those who had opposed Jesus) were still alive, and before Christianity became an established state religion), or why, if the "contradictions" you speak of were seen as fatal flaws to the credibility of the entirety of the Gospel accounts, they were not expunged long ago, especially after the Church was in a position to dictate which writings were inspired and which were not. Do you think others haven't expressed the same views as you are espousing since the time the Church was founded, in spite of which Christianity still took root and flourished; or that (as I said) none of the billions of people who have believed the Gospel accounts were capable of examining them as you have, but reached a totally different conclusion as to their historicity and reliability?

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I'd rather believe the Buddha, who said..."don't believe what tradition, scripture, or even I, have to tell you. Believe only in the things that you can verify by your own personal experience. Be a lamp unto yourselves".

That's exactly what the early Church was based on -- the personal experience of those who had been with Jesus during his ministry; who had seen him after he rose from the dead (which validated his unique claims to be God in human flesh); and who were compelled by those life-changing events (as well as commanded by Jesus Himself) to tell others about them, and to be willing to die for the truth of their testimony.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Overlay

That's your opinion, and, as I said, you're entitled to it. But it still leaves unaddressed the questions of why (if the Gospel accounts are a total fiction) they were not refuted and rejected long ago (including during the time when witnesses to the events were still alive, and before Christianity became an established state religion), or why, if the "contradictions" you speak of were seen as fatal flaws to the credibility of the entirety of the Gospel accounts, they were not expunged long ago, especially after the Church was in a position to dictate which writings were inspired and which were not. Do you think others haven't expressed the same views as you are espousing since the time the Church was founded, in spite of which Christianity still took root and flourished; or that (as I said) none of the billions of people who have believed the Gospel accounts were capable of examining them as you have, but reached a totally different conclusion as to their historicity and reliability?

I have verified, through my own direct experience, that there is nothing unusual about seeing millions of people believing in something that is virtually impossible to verify. Did you know that 77% of Americans believe in the existence of ANGELS? Here is the proof right here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nea...eve-in-angels/

Using your above argument as a guide-stick, one would have to assume that these people must have "examined" the evidence...and finally concluded that the angels indeed WERE real...right? I mean...why else would they stick to such a strange belief?

You've heard the saying "I'll believe it when I see it"...right?

Well...the "religious" person has got that backwards. He sees it when he believes it.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Well...the "religious" person has got that backwards. He sees it when he believes it.

Apparently (according to the article), a majority of non-Christians, and also 40% of those who never attend religious services, hold the same "strange" belief. Why is that? Are they all incapable of critical reasoning?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Overlay

That's exactly what the early Church was based on -- the personal experience of those who had been with Jesus during his ministry; who had seen him after he rose from the dead (which validated his unique claims to be God in human flesh); and who were compelled by those life-changing events (as well as commanded by Jesus Himself) to tell others about them, and to be willing to die for the truth of their testimony.

The "early" Christians were not as unified in their beliefs as you seem to think.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/chri...istorical.html

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by TJDave

There is no credible evidence of anyone witnessing any event described in the Gospels. Furthermore, the Gospels are at odds in their descriptions of those events. You would think they could have at least compared notes. I guess the compilers never believed there would be such a thing as fact check.

Originally Posted by Overlay

That's your opinion, and, as I said, you're entitled to it. But it still leaves unaddressed the questions of why (if the Gospel accounts are a total fiction) they were not refuted and rejected long ago (including during the time when contemporaries to the described events (including those who had opposed Jesus) were still alive, and before Christianity became an established state religion), or why, if the "contradictions" you speak of were seen as fatal flaws to the credibility of the entirety of the Gospel accounts, they were not expunged long ago, especially after the Church was in a position to dictate which writings were inspired and which were not. Do you think others haven't expressed the same views as you are espousing since the time the Church was founded, in spite of which Christianity still took root and flourished; or that (as I said) none of the billions of people who have believed the Gospel accounts were capable of examining them as you have, but reached a totally different conclusion as to their historicity and reliability?

Editing my earlier response to clarify the post that I was responding to.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Apparently (according to the article), a majority of non-Christians, and also 40% of those who never attend religious services, hold the same "strange" belief. Why is that? Are they all incapable of critical reasoning?

I didn't specify Christianity when I presented that quote...I said "religious people". What form of "critical reasoning" could convince someone of the existence of angels?

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Overlay

That's your opinion, and, as I said, you're entitled to it.

You don't honestly believe that, otherwise you wouldn't attempt to change them.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Editing my earlier response to clarify the post that I was responding to.

I wasn't stating opinion. There is no credible evidence that anything reported in the Gospels ever occurred. That you believe otherwise is based on faith, not fact.