Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[comic boy]

I don't believe I actually have to argue against people who deny Christ existed. The last "experts" to do that were Soviet historians. his is ridiculous. Find me one scholar that disagrees. As for Pliny, so what? His letter. if you other to read it, details how the Christians are growing and established sect, and he writes in 117 AD.

Show me one post that denies his existence,your point is flawed and you have shown yourself to be a fraud !

right....I believe Jesus was a historical person, you hence ask me to show you a post that denies his existence, then say I'm a fraud and my point is flawed....bizarre
So people who believe in a historical Jesus are flawed and fraudulent are they?
I suppose my belief in Julius Caesar, King Henry VIII and Jhn Kennedy make me a crazy bigoted homophobe do they?

I have told you once already but as you seem a little slow I shall repeat myself,nobody has denied the existence of Jesus so why do you keep bringing it up ? You are a fraud for repeatedly ignoring points made and resorting to exageration at best and downright lies at worst !

[Snorri1234]

right....I believe Jesus was a historical person, you hence ask me to show you a post that denies his existence,

Well obviously as you said you didn't have to argue with people who don't believe jesus existed, which only could've referred to vtmarik's post. And that post didn't say anything about jesus not existing.
It's pretty reasonable to ask you where you read it.

then say I'm a fraud and my point is flawed....bizarre
So people who believe in a historical Jesus are flawed and fraudulent are they?

Wow, you really don't know how to read do you?
People who ignore points and try to bend other's words to justify a cheap cop-out are fraudulent and have flawed points.

[Dancing Mustard]

Just a friendly reminder to try and keep your posts free of histrionics, they tend to damage your credibility.

Too late for that... the damage was done a long time ago.

[1ngliz]

Guiscard, I think we can agree there were at least 6 'jesus's' if we look at the sources

[Backglass]

Did a man named jesus exist who had considerable and charismatic influence over this ancient people?

Sure.

Was this man the son incarnate of an invisible, magical god of the sky who impregnated an earth woman in her sleep?

Surely not.

[Mr_Adams]

Did a man named jesus exist who had considerable and charismatic influence over this ancient people?

Sure.

Was this man the son incarnate of an invisible, magical god of the sky who impregnated an earth woman in her sleep?

Surely not.

and your so sure of this because....

[Neoteny]

Did a man named jesus exist who had considerable and charismatic influence over this ancient people?

Sure.

Was this man the son incarnate of an invisible, magical god of the sky who impregnated an earth woman in her sleep?

Surely not.

and your so sure of this because....

Invisible and magical spring to mind.

[MeDeFe]

Now this is quite the bump.

[Roofus4_]

[quote="CoffeeCream"]

2. If God is all powerful then why doesn't he just show himself to everyone? Either that or perform some miracle which would prove to everyone once and for all that he is actually interested in us. I think he exists by the way, but Christians tell us that he loves us. Why doesn't he get involved in all the wars here and put an end to them all? I don't think anyone can prove that this supreme being is really directly interested in our affairs.

I am a believer in God. I believe that Jesus died for our sins. I still get a lot of things wrong, and try to learn from my mistakes. I really like reading all the responses on this topic on here (well most of them ) There are some I agree with and some I don't. But like others have stated, we all have our own opinions... The statement that you made CoffeeCream "If God is all powerful then why doesn't He just show himself to everyone? is the one that has prompted me to post.

The way that I have in part have come to believe in God is this. Wind. You can feel the wind, you can see the effects that wind has on objects, it can move you if it is strong enough, but you cannot see it - wind. I believe that God is the same way. You can feel Him, see His affects on different levels of life(s), He can move you - if you let Him, but you cannot see Him. God, like wind, is always there. Maybe slightly or strongly. We see how wind affects things daily, we don't see the "wind" so how do we know it is there? Is this not the same way that it is with God? Just because we can't see him, doesn't mean He isn't there. It is obvious that He is everywhere, just like wind.

I'm hoping that this makes a little bit of sense.

[OnlyAmbrose]

2. If God is all powerful then why doesn't he just show himself to everyone? Either that or perform some miracle which would prove to everyone once and for all that he is actually interested in us. I think he exists by the way, but Christians tell us that he loves us. Why doesn't he get involved in all the wars here and put an end to them all? I don't think anyone can prove that this supreme being is really directly interested in our affairs.

I am a believer in God. I believe that Jesus died for our sins. I still get a lot of things wrong, and try to learn from my mistakes. I really like reading all the responses on this topic on here (well most of them ) There are some I agree with and some I don't. But like others have stated, we all have our own opinions... The statement that you made CoffeeCream "If God is all powerful then why doesn't He just show himself to everyone? is the one that has prompted me to post.

The way that I have in part have come to believe in God is this. Wind. You can feel the wind, you can see the effects that wind has on objects, it can move you if it is strong enough, but you cannot see it - wind. I believe that God is the same way. You can feel Him, see His affects on different levels of life(s), He can move you - if you let Him, but you cannot see Him. God, like wind, is always there. Maybe slightly or strongly. We see how wind affects things daily, we don't see the "wind" so how do we know it is there? Is this not the same way that it is with God? Just because we can't see him, doesn't mean He isn't there. It is obvious that He is everywhere, just like wind.

I'm hoping that this makes a little bit of sense.

CoffeeCream has, since the beginning of this thread several months back, become Christian

[Caleb the Cruel]

CoffeeCream has, since the beginning of this thread several months back, become Christian

Yes, he is now a follower of Christ and let us rejoice for that!


However this thread does still serve a wonderful purpose as it holds many questions that doubters face with the wonderful answers of the Holy Spirit through the Jesus Freaks & other Christians on the site. I encourage any non-believer to read some of the discussion we had here or post some questions of their own.

[InkL0sed]

Now this is quite the bump.

[reminisco]

2. If God is all powerful then why doesn't he just show himself to everyone? Either that or perform some miracle which would prove to everyone once and for all that he is actually interested in us. I think he exists by the way, but Christians tell us that he loves us. Why doesn't he get involved in all the wars here and put an end to them all? I don't think anyone can prove that this supreme being is really directly interested in our affairs.

there's a chapter in the gospel of Luke that deals with that very question.

and yeah, i was a catechism boy, and i know the Bible pretty well, but not enough to go citing chapter and verse. any of the jesus freaks here care to step in? it was in reference to one of the miracles Jesus performed... maybe casting out a demon, or giving sight to a blind man.

anyway, if you want the Christian theological explanation for the answers to your question -- i'm pretty sure you can find it there.

[MeDeFe]

2. If God is all powerful then why doesn't he just show himself to everyone? Either that or perform some miracle which would prove to everyone once and for all that he is actually interested in us. I think he exists by the way, but Christians tell us that he loves us. Why doesn't he get involved in all the wars here and put an end to them all? I don't think anyone can prove that this supreme being is really directly interested in our affairs.

I am a believer in God. I believe that Jesus died for our sins. I still get a lot of things wrong, and try to learn from my mistakes. I really like reading all the responses on this topic on here (well most of them ) There are some I agree with and some I don't. But like others have stated, we all have our own opinions... The statement that you made CoffeeCream "If God is all powerful then why doesn't He just show himself to everyone? is the one that has prompted me to post.

The way that I have in part have come to believe in God is this. Wind. You can feel the wind, you can see the effects that wind has on objects, it can move you if it is strong enough, but you cannot see it - wind. I believe that God is the same way. You can feel Him, see His affects on different levels of life(s), He can move you - if you let Him, but you cannot see Him. God, like wind, is always there. Maybe slightly or strongly. We see how wind affects things daily, we don't see the "wind" so how do we know it is there? Is this not the same way that it is with God? Just because we can't see him, doesn't mean He isn't there. It is obvious that He is everywhere, just like wind.

I'm hoping that this makes a little bit of sense.

tbh, not much, it's a nice metaphor, though. But if god is acting on various levels of life, maybe even in ways that nothing else could achieve, he would be an observable phenomenon and provable, much like gravity which you can't see either but feel all the time.

[Jenos Ridan]

2. If God is all powerful then why doesn't he just show himself to everyone? Either that or perform some miracle which would prove to everyone once and for all that he is actually interested in us. I think he exists by the way, but Christians tell us that he loves us. Why doesn't he get involved in all the wars here and put an end to them all? I don't think anyone can prove that this supreme being is really directly interested in our affairs.

I am a believer in God. I believe that Jesus died for our sins. I still get a lot of things wrong, and try to learn from my mistakes. I really like reading all the responses on this topic on here (well most of them ) There are some I agree with and some I don't. But like others have stated, we all have our own opinions... The statement that you made CoffeeCream "If God is all powerful then why doesn't He just show himself to everyone? is the one that has prompted me to post.

The way that I have in part have come to believe in God is this. Wind. You can feel the wind, you can see the effects that wind has on objects, it can move you if it is strong enough, but you cannot see it - wind. I believe that God is the same way. You can feel Him, see His affects on different levels of life(s), He can move you - if you let Him, but you cannot see Him. God, like wind, is always there. Maybe slightly or strongly. We see how wind affects things daily, we don't see the "wind" so how do we know it is there? Is this not the same way that it is with God? Just because we can't see him, doesn't mean He isn't there. It is obvious that He is everywhere, just like wind.

I'm hoping that this makes a little bit of sense.

tbh, not much, it's a nice metaphor, though. But if god is acting on various levels of life, maybe even in ways that nothing else could achieve, he would be an observable phenomenon and provable, much like gravity which you can't see either but feel all the time.

That, my friend, is what the Holy Ghost/Spirit is for.

Aside from that, it's the small miracles that one can point to. That and the logic of it; my summary of a pamphlet by Philosophy Professor Tom Morris:

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligibility.).

2. The existence of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation

(logical deduction from #1)

3. No rational person should accept 2a. (Confirmed by the definition of rationality.)

4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.

5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essence of the thing to be explained requires it's existence.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.

6. The existence of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.

7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.

8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.

9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.

10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.

The next logical step is to discover this "God." Therefore, only one can be the true God.

[MeDeFe]

You've posted that before, and it failed then. I think at least 7 of those 10 points were shown to be either complete bollocks, incorrectly derived from the premises, incomplete or extremely badly worded. And that's an inclusive 'or'.

At least I'm pretty sure it was you.

[Napoleon Ier]

You've posted that before, and it failed then. I think at least 7 of those 10 points were shown to be either complete bollocks, incorrectly derived from the premises, incomplete or extremely badly worded. And that's an inclusive 'or'.

At least I'm pretty sure it was you.

It really didn't fail, though. You faffed and shifted around in a rather embarassed way, claiming "yes OK, there is a God but he's probably not the Christian one", but, to my memory, offered no serious philosophical rebuttal.

[Frigidus]

It really didn't fail, though. You faffed and shifted around in a rather embarassed way, claiming "yes OK, there is a God but he's probably not the Christian one", but, to my memory, offered no serious philosophical rebuttal.

Hm. Fair enough.

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligibility.).

I assume you basically mean that it doesn't make sense that something exists unless there's a reason it exists. Fair enough, that can be debatable but I honestly agree.

2. The existence of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation

OK.

3. No rational person should accept 2a. (Confirmed by the definition of rationality.)

Hardly. When you're talking about whether there is a reason for existence you're talking about things far beyond what humans know currently, and likely ever. For instance, if the universe didn't exist (nothing existed), do we require a reason for that? Either something exists or nothing, there is no other alternative. Why does one require an explanation while the other doesn't? But fine, I'll give it to you again. Let's just skip 4 as it restates this one.

5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essence of the thing to be explained requires it's existence.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.

I don't want to argue about this, lets just get to the first clear flaw.

6. The existence of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.

Ah, so here we argue that something outside of the universe must have made the universe. Since you come right out and say "God did it" in step 9, we can assume God is outside the universe. But then we can use this same process on God. Why does he exist? Who made him? Same thing goes for your answers there. You have to choose a starting point somewhere, and it seems rather arbitrary that the universe can't exist on its own yet God can. Clearly there is something out there that wasn't created for a reason. So we have to throw out your first assumption all together!

EDIT:

The next logical step is to discover this "God." Therefore, only one can be the true God.

Oh, and by the way, how do we know the universe wasn't a joint venture? It's not like any of us was there. Not arguing for god(s), just pointing out that there could be plenty of true ones.

[CoffeeCream]

It's difficult to believe, but I didn't even know what a Rickroll was when I began this discussion!

I'm also impressed that this thread went over 90 pages

[suggs]

A depressing thread.
Why has it gone on this long.
Why am i bumping it, by posting in it.
Why I have i forgotten to use question marks.
Why cant be people be more like me, i.e: RIGHT.
In fact, why isnt everyone me, apart from 365 women.


The answer to all these questions is Who Knows? - just like the beginning of the universe.

Ah. I have compared myself to the beginning of the universe. My ego is in good shape

[MeDeFe]

I found the thread where Jenos first posted this 10 points conclusion by Tom Morris, but that one had already gone way off topic so I decided not to bump it.

I will however repost my reply from back then it a slightly modified form, yes that's the beautiful thing, sometimes you learn something new and can apply it.

1. intelligible - understandable, in the way that you can "get your mind around it", but where is the prerequisite of an explanation? Personally I'm quite happy to let, say, gravity go on and be something that comes with matter and just is. There are degrees of understanding as well, it's not a 1/0 issue.

And understandable in what way? In the way it works? That would in this case be the physical laws and whatnot. In 'where it all came from'? I'm not convinced knowing exactly down to the last detail how the universe started (or if it ever did) is necessary to understand the basic workings of the universe.

2. has just fallen flat on its face because there's a third option of partial understanding, but I'm not done yet, even if we allow for only his two options and disregard 3. that "We cannot ever fully understand the unvierse and where it came from" is not all that irrational and nicely allows a person to get on with other stuff than posting on an internet forum.

4. is correct under my previously stated premises, you need to disregard the problems with the first 3 points in order to accept this one.

5. Back in my first reply I accepted this one. No more...
There's really only one sort of explanation, which is really more accurately termed 'description': we see phenomenon A and can list the factors which caused the phenomenon, then we can list the factors that caused the factors causing A to come about and so on. At some point, though, we're forced to say that we observe entities with certain distinguishing features behave in a certain way under certain conditions, but can not (yet) say why they behave that way. This applies to all explanations, be they of scientific phenomena (why does this rubber ball bounce back if I throw it against a wall?) or human behaviour (why did you murder your wife?). I'll here postulate that there is no such thing as an "essential explanation", what does it even mean that something must exist? Do you have an example of such a thing, I can't think of one.

6. Why do there have to be initial physical conditions outside of the universe? In a thread some time ago someone pointed out that there is evidence that a physical constant (I think something to do with electrons) has changed over the last 15B years. That shouldn't be possible since it's supposedly a constant, but if it is possible I really see no reason why there can't be initial conditions inside this universe at one point that simply don't occur nowadays and which started off the universe we see. A proto-universe so to speak, we've had that discussion as well, with time not yet an established dimension and suchlike, remember?
In the old thread it was mentioned in reply to this that no closed system can be fully explained without referencing to whatever's outside the system. Well, but so what? If Godel's incompleteness theorem (says Colossus) is true it only means that we cannot fully explain the universe. (Which, unlike what Morris may think and say, is not a problem.) And anyway, what's "outside the universe" supposed to mean. The universe is not some ball which we're sitting inside where we can just walk up to the boundary, poke a hole in it and take a look at what's "outside".

7. The universe is dependent on something that is uncertain or will happen in the future? Pardon me, we, humanity, might be a little uncertain about whether and how the universe began, but that does in no way imply that the universe is uncertain about this, no matter what the explanation is. Even having questioned the validity of essential explanations already, what does this have to do with anything?

8. And where did this Person come from? We're back to the old question of who created the creator, and that's one you cannot get out of. A creator outside of the universe "must" exist only if you can prove that nothing else can have caused it. And Tom Morris has shown nothing of the sort so far. Even if you can show that the universe has to have been created, there's nothing to indicate that the creator is "essential" and must exist, you end up with an infinite regress.

9. And now we give it a name, hey, let's call it Bob. And we ascribe attributes to it, "power" and "wisdom". Now really, the origins of the universe we largely see today might have required some large-scale border conditions, but "wisdom"?
This step is completely unnecessary and serves no other end than to introduce the term 'God' into the line of reasoning.

10. the conclusion has been shown not to follow, because the premises are flawed on several levels, thank you for your time.

There you go, now let's have a debate, but things were even worse than I remembered, every point was attackable. And this time, let's not concentrate on only the sixth point for half a page. The last time noone

[t-o-m]

im a Jesus Freak,

Alleluia!

[jonesthecurl]

I'm not.



Yabadabadoo

[PLAYER57832]

The real and true answer to your question is that faith is something you believe and understand ... or you don't.

Trying to logic into faith or "explain" it to someone who doesn't wish to believe is about like trying to convince someone to love another person. You may well think your two best friends are "prefectly matched" and should get together, but guess what? Your friend (sister/brother, etc.) may well fall in love with that woman/man you think is "scum of the earth".

BUT, since you asked for answers:

I should define what I believe so we're all clear here. First of all I think the idea of evolution to be silly. Nature just magically selected certain species to survive and thrive? No way! There's too many holes in the theories and nobody's been able to prove it.

Which might be why that ISN'T the theory of evolution. Natural selection is only a part of evolution and it certainly isn't "magic". If you have 2 bucks, they will fight and the winner gets to impregnate the does ... with a few exceptions, like sometimes while the "big guys" are fighting, a little guy can "sneak in" and "do his thing" ... or maybe the biggest, baddes buck of all gets hit by a car before he has a chance to bread ... or... . THAT is how natural selection REALLY works.

The people who believe in it are welcome to it, but they've been given enough time to produce the evidence and they never are able to.

visit Widowmaker's Creationist thread, beginning around page 89 or so. You will see plenty of presented real evidence.
BUT in one way you are correct, no one is absolutely sure exactly how it occured and, certainly people of faith will put God in there somewhere. HOWEVER, the general idea--
that things change over time (through various means including natural selection), that mutations occur, that natural selection occurs ... all of those ARE proven. As is the fact that different Geological layers represent different methods of formation and differant times, etc.
To say scientist cannot produce evidence means you haven't talked to many in the field or read much written by paleontologist, evolutionary biologists.

]1. God is omniscient. Ok if that's true then why did he create Satan knowing that he would one day rebel? Doesn't that mean that God indirectly created evil?

Yes

Then how could He be considered a good God. Also why did he allow for man to eat the apple? .

The ultimate answer is God knows, even if we don't.

That seems a little cruel to me - sort of like teasing a child into doing something that's bad for them

No, its more like raising a child, knowing full well they may choose to "do wrong" when they get older, may get hit by a car, etc.

Would we all perhaps have been happier without knowledge, without knowing that there was sin? Without chance for evil? Maybe so. BUT, we would not have been fully human. It is our struggles that define who we are.

What is it to just survive? Without pain, we don't really know what joy is. Also, though people suffer, other people achieve their greatest heights, the epitomy of humanity (Mother Teresa, etc.) by helping others. It is like the story of the mishapen angle. Sometimes God's grace, God's magesty is shown not in what happens, but in other people's responses.

I think he exists by the way, but Christians tell us that he loves us. Why doesn't he get involved in all the wars here and put an end to them all?
I don't think anyone can prove that this supreme being is really directly interested in our affairs.

These go together with your earlier question. The ultimate answer is that God made us who we are. Part of what makes us human is experiencing pain and suffering. Is that what God "wants", no. We have choices. Choice means sometimes we do good things, sometimes we don't. Everything anyone does has ramifications far beyond just the immediate. Maybe it takes one child dying to alert the nation to the dangers of improper quality control in medicine ... or to the fact that AIDS is a disease and not a "sin". Science Fiction time travel scenarios are full of taking this question to extremes ... and philosophy & religious books answer it in much more detailed, but far less absolute answers.

As for the last ... yes and no. God is interested in humanity. He made us. But, he gives us free will. Sometimes he does intervene. He answers prayer. Sometimes he answers "yes" sometimes it is hard to tell, sometimes there are outright miracles. Soemtimes he answers "no". Individually, this isn't "fair". I don't think we are puppets on strings or game pieces that God watches and decides "oh, he is going to live .. that one is going to die
quote="CoffeeCream[/quote]"

3. Since Christians believe in free will, then why do they constantly want to legislate morality? Shouldn't people be free to do pretty much what they want as long as it conforms to the law or aren't killing anyone?

A lot of Christians ask the same question. The short answer is being a Christian doesn't make one perfect.

The longer answer is that Christians don't even agree completely on what that "morality" is. Some people feel they need to ensure that everyone else follows the "rules" (as they perceive them or it puts them at risk. Others just feel the need to dictate behavior of those around them ... sometimes feeling that if people are asked to behave outwardly, they will come to see the reasoning from within, sometimes they just feel offended when others do things they dislike ... the answers are as numerous as the people putting forward the ideas.

The bottom line answer to what is correct is the Bible and Christ. Interestingly, the people Christ truly condemned were not those "woeful sinners", but the church (synogogue) hierarchy. Interesting, isn't it?

4. From what I'm reading on here it sounds like that someone can live the absolute worst life but then 'accept' Jesus (whatever that means) and still go to heaven (wherever that is). On the flip side, someone can live the absolute best life but not 'accept' Jesus and still go to hell. Huh!!! Oh yeah, and how can a loving God send someone to hell in the first place?

God doesn't "send" people there. People choose to not follow God ... and Hell is the result. By-the-way, to many Christians, Hell is the complete absense of God. Other pictures are disputed, though popular.

My position is that there is some type of God or supreme being but it's impossible to personally know him as he stopped caring about us or is apathetic. I await any of you

Again, this is something you have to decide and feel for yourself. Even the most devout has periods where they feel God is not there. Perhaps you are in one of those. Or, perhaps you have so convinced yourself he does not exist that you cannot see. It is an entirely personal thing.

[t-o-m]

I'm not.



Yabadabadoo

neither am i!

Yabadabadoo