The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by One Eye Jack
...being born again means:
1. acknowledging that you're a sinner,
2. asking for forgiveness, and
3. repenting from your sins.

Originally posted by Z Man
I know, it's really simple. So simple, it's hard for you to understand it some times. But, a Christian is just that;
1. Any person who believes in Jesus Christ as their savior.
2. Any person that continues in the faith.

So simple, eh?

You and Jack can't even agree in three "simple" steps.

Notice that you have added a criterion for endurance that he did not.

It's amazing to me that you Christians cannot seem to agree on the "simple things"...

Of course, since you are all making up as you go along, it shouldn't be surprising...

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Zakath
So simple, eh?

You and Jack can't even agree in three "simple" steps.

Notice that you have added a criterion for endurance that he did not.

It's amazing to me that you Christians cannot seem to agree on the "simple things"...

Of course, since you are all making up as you go along, it shouldn't be surprising...

What's so hard to understand here? What I and Jack said go hand in hand. Besides, Jack defined how an individual becomes a genuine Christian; I defined how to tell if an individual, who did what Jack described, is genuine or not.
Jack described the cause, I described the effect. :thumb:

Originally posted by One Eye Jack
...being born again means...

Originally posted by Z Man
...a Christian is...

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
One Eyed Jack
>>Does a secretary use interpretation when taking dictation?<<

Yes.

No, the secretary types out exactly what the boss says -- no interpretation required.

>>God was there to witness it, and He told it to Moses who either wrote or compiled Genesis.<<

So, how accurate is Mozes account of Genesis?

Pretty accurate I'd imagine. Do you misspell everything on purpose, or is this a learning disability?

Since he hasn't seen it himself, he most likely filled in any blanks himself.

Such as?

>>I think you're a little too hung up on interpretation. If all the Bible authors relied totally on their own interpretations, I'm sure they'd have cast themselves in a better light. The fact that they record the good and the bad leads me to believe they're giving a true account.<<

Wow, same facts, different conclusion. Yes, they did record both the good and the bad, but only from their viewpoint.

From whose viewpoint should events have been recorded?

>>It's not as if people can't possibly get anything right.<<

Well, they may get something right, but usually not without errors. Considdering the length and size of the book its UNBELIEVABLE that all these people would NOT have made a single mistake.

There are 66 books in the Bible, averaging less than 50 pages each. It's not that hard to remain accurate for 50 pages, as long as you stick to the subject.

You don't really believe that they were flawless in their work do you?

Yes, I do. Do you really believe there is no God?

>>Like I said -- you're a prime example of someone who reads something and comes away with a totally different understanding than the one it intended to convey.<<

And exactly HOW would you know what meaning it was INTENDED to convey?

Well the Bible certainly wasn't intended to convey the notion that God doesn't exist -- surely you can agree with that.

>>That doesn't answer my question, but I'm getting used to that from you.<<

Then what precisely was your question? "What about the people that had access to copies of the original Greek and Hebrew writing?" In exactly what kind of direction were you interrested? Be a little more specific.

Play it off the comment that preceded it, and maybe you can figure it out.

>>I don't use anybody's interpretation. I just read it.<<

So you use your own interpretation. Just like everyone else, your interpretation of this world and everything in it is your own.

It just happens to be shared by others.

>>Have you ever considered that a lot of them use the same interpretation?<<

That isn't true, because for example Catholicism and Protestantism differ fundamentally in their interpretation of the bible such as the nature of "sin".

What are you talking about? Catholics and Protestants generally agree when it comes to the nature of sin.

>>I'm not aware of anybody that's claiming to completely understand the mind of God.<<

Good, since its not possible according to the nature of God. So, since the "complete" meaning is not possible, how can you know that your "understanding" of the bible is complete?

I never claimed my understanding of the Bible was complete.

Now, if you do NOT fully understand the bible, then in what way would that understanding be a "misunderstanding"?

You tell me, smart guy.

 

[shima]

>>No, the secretary types out exactly what the boss says -- no interpretation required.<<

Correction, she types what she THINKS the boss is saying.

>>Do you misspell everything on purpose, or is this a learning disability? <<

Neither, English is not my mother language.

>>Such as?<<

I don't know, and the point is: neither do you.

>>From whose viewpoint should events have been recorded?<<

From Gods viewpoint ofcourse. Since God was dictating things, it should have been easy to write down Gods viewpoint. They didn't.

>>There are 66 books in the Bible, averaging less than 50 pages each. It's not that hard to remain accurate for 50 pages, as long as you stick to the subject.<<

Its extremely hard to be accurate if you weren't there to witness the events yourself. Its extremely hard to be accurate even if you WERE there to witness it. And ofcourse then there is the problem of cpying a copy from a copy etc. The ones who wrote down what was to become the authorative copy of the bible did NOT have the Greek and Hebrew originals, but only copies.

>>Yes, I do. <<

Why would they be any different than other people on this planet?

>>Do you really believe there is no God?<<

Yes, I believe there is no God.

>>Well the Bible certainly wasn't intended to convey the notion that God doesn't exist -- surely you can agree with that.<<

Well, the bible was intended to convey that God does exist. Ofcourse, that doesn't mean he DOES exists, only that those who wrote it intended it. They could have been lying, since these were religious/politically motivated people. Power and Control was their primary concern.

>>Play it off the comment that preceded it, and maybe you can figure it out. <<

Since we don't have the original Greek manuscript, there is very little we can know about how accurate the current translation is.

>>What are you talking about? Catholics and Protestants generally agree when it comes to the nature of sin. <<

No they don't. The baptism for example is different.

>>I never claimed my understanding of the Bible was complete.<<

Good.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
>>No, the secretary types out exactly what the boss says -- no interpretation required.<<

Correction, she types what she THINKS the boss is saying.

Well, all I can say is she better get it right if she wants to keep her job.

>>Do you misspell everything on purpose, or is this a learning disability? <<

Neither, English is not my mother language.

I find that hard to believe. You had the correct spelling right in front of you.

>>Such as?<<

I don't know

I didn't think so.

>>From whose viewpoint should events have been recorded?<<

From Gods viewpoint ofcourse. Since God was dictating things, it should have been easy to write down Gods viewpoint. They didn't.

What makes you say that?

>>There are 66 books in the Bible, averaging less than 50 pages each. It's not that hard to remain accurate for 50 pages, as long as you stick to the subject.<<

Its extremely hard to be accurate if you weren't there to witness the events yourself.

Most of the writers are talking about events they did witness.

Its extremely hard to be accurate even if you WERE there to witness it.

But not impossible.

And ofcourse then there is the problem of cpying a copy from a copy etc.

Not if you knew the methods the Hebrews employed to make sure their copies were accurate. They'd go over each copy letter by letter after it was made, and if so much as one letter was off -- they'd burn it and start all over. You don't pass on copying errors when you employ methods like that.

The ones who wrote down what was to become the authorative copy of the bible did NOT have the Greek and Hebrew originals, but only copies.

Which copy is the 'authoritative copy?'

>>Yes, I do. <<

Why would they be any different than other people on this planet?

They're not, by and large.

>>Do you really believe there is no God?<<

Yes, I believe there is no God.

You'll believe there's a God on Judgement Day.

>>Well the Bible certainly wasn't intended to convey the notion that God doesn't exist -- surely you can agree with that.<<

Well, the bible was intended to convey that God does exist.

Exactly.

>>Play it off the comment that preceded it, and maybe you can figure it out. <<

Since we don't have the original Greek manuscript, there is very little we can know about how accurate the current translation is.

We don't have the originals for a lot of things. How true to the original do you think The Illiad is?

>>What are you talking about? Catholics and Protestants generally agree when it comes to the nature of sin. <<

No they don't. The baptism for example is different.

That has nothing to do with the nature of sin.

>>I never claimed my understanding of the Bible was complete.<<

Good.

Were you expecting me to say otherwise?

 

[shima]

One Eyed jack:
>>Not if you knew the methods the Hebrews employed to make sure their copies were accurate. They'd go over each copy letter by letter after it was made, and if so much as one letter was off -- they'd burn it and start all over. You don't pass on copying errors when you employ methods like that.<<

However, the Christians DIDN'T employ these copying methods.

>>Which copy is the 'authoritative copy?'<<

Precisely.

>>They're not, by and large.<<

Exactly my point.

>>You'll believe there's a God on Judgement Day.<<

No God means no Judgement Day.

>>Exactly.<<

Ofcourse, that doesn't mean God exists, but only that the people who wrote the bible wanted other people to believe that he does exist.

>>We don't have the originals for a lot of things. How true to the original do you think The Illiad is?<<

I don't know. Depends on how many times it was copied, and what amount of generations there were between the original and the current copy.

>>That has nothing to do with the nature of sin.<<

It does.

>>Were you expecting me to say otherwise?<<

No, which is precisely the point I was making. Since your understanding is incomplete, you have no idea how "misunderstood" your understanding actually is.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
One Eyed jack:
>>Not if you knew the methods the Hebrews employed to make sure their copies were accurate. They'd go over each copy letter by letter after it was made, and if so much as one letter was off -- they'd burn it and start all over. You don't pass on copying errors when you employ methods like that.<<

However, the Christians DIDN'T employ these copying methods.

I don't know what copying methods they employed, but we've got some pretty old copies that totally line up. We've got older copies of the New Testament manuscripts than the oldest copies available of many classics that we take for granted were copied faithfully.

>>Which copy is the 'authoritative copy?'<<

Precisely.

Precisely what? You've nullified your own statements.

>>They're not, by and large.<<

Exactly my point.

Your point being what -- that you don't know how to write down an accurate version of events you witness?

>>You'll believe there's a God on Judgement Day.<<

No God means no Judgement Day.

But there is a God. He's not dependent on your beliefs for existence.

>>Exactly.<<

Ofcourse, that doesn't mean God exists, but only that the people who wrote the bible wanted other people to believe that he does exist.

Or they believed it themselves.

>>We don't have the originals for a lot of things. How true to the original do you think The Illiad is?<<

I don't know. Depends on how many times it was copied, and what amount of generations there were between the original and the current copy.

A lot more than for the oldest New Testament manuscripts we have.

>>That has nothing to do with the nature of sin.<<

It does.

Explain how the method of baptism has to do with the nature of sin. I think you're confused.

>>Were you expecting me to say otherwise?<<

No, which is precisely the point I was making. Since your understanding is incomplete, you have no idea how "misunderstood" your understanding actually is.

I think I've got the basics, and that's all you really need. Love God with all you've got, and love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[shima]

One Eyed Jack:
>>Precisely what? You've nullified your own statements.<<

No, you rather nullified your own. There is currently no authorative copy of the bible, precisely because they are all different and all emply different INTERPRETATIONS of similar events. Now, for a book that is supposedly a "perfect" copy of the word of god, I expect all copies to be equal. Yet this is hardly the case for the bible. There are plenty of different versions about, all of which claim to be the "word of god". Yet they are all different.

If, for example, we lay two copies of "Illiad" next to eachother and they clearly differ, we then question the accuracy of the copying method and the interpretation used by those copiers. We however DON'T know which copy is more faithfull to the original untill we find more copies.

>>Your point being what -- that you don't know how to write down an accurate version of events you witness?<<

No, that HUMANS find it hard to write down an accurate version of events witnessed without letting their personal biass and interpretation get in the way of that accuracy.

>>But there is a God. He's not dependent on your beliefs for existence.<<

Neither does his absence depend on your belief in his existence. He either exists or he doesn't. You believe he does, I believe he doesn't.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
One Eyed Jack:
>>Precisely what? You've nullified your own statements.<<

No, you rather nullified your own.

How have I done that? I never claimed any particular translation was 'the authoritative copy.'

There is currently no authorative copy of the bible, precisely because they are all different and all emply different INTERPRETATIONS of similar events. Now, for a book that is supposedly a "perfect" copy of the word of god, I expect all copies to be equal. Yet this is hardly the case for the bible. There are plenty of different versions about, all of which claim to be the "word of god". Yet they are all different.

They're not that different. There are some bad translations out there, I'll agree, but most of them agree in all matters of doctrine.

If, for example, we lay two copies of "Illiad" next to eachother and they clearly differ, we then question the accuracy of the copying method and the interpretation used by those copiers. We however DON'T know which copy is more faithfull to the original untill we find more copies.

Correction -- until we find the original. And as far as I know, all the copies say the same thing.

>>Your point being what -- that you don't know how to write down an accurate version of events you witness?<<

No, that HUMANS find it hard to write down an accurate version of events witnessed without letting their personal biass and interpretation get in the way of that accuracy.

But not impossible.

>>But there is a God. He's not dependent on your beliefs for existence.<<

Neither does his absence depend on your belief in his existence.

No kidding.

He either exists or he doesn't. You believe he does, I believe he doesn't.

And on Judgement Day, He'll prove to you He does by resurrecting you for Judgement. You may be in for quite a shock, but you'll finally believe He exists.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Z Man
What's so hard to understand here? What I and Jack said go hand in hand. Besides, Jack defined how an individual becomes a genuine Christian; I defined how to tell if an individual, who did what Jack described, is genuine or not.

Perhaps it would be nice if you clarified such things when you post.

Jack described the cause, I described the effect.

Not quite. The use of jargon by religionists is very confusing. You appear to describe two very different things. Jack wrote the following, describing actions:

...being born again means:
1. acknowledging that you're a sinner,
2. asking for forgiveness, and
3. repenting from your sins.

You wrote the following, but describing different actions:

...a Christian is just that;
1. Any person who believes in Jesus Christ as their savior.
2. Any person that continues in the faith.

Try stepping outside your belief system for a moment and attempt to see things as they look to someone who is on the outside, Z-man.

How should I understand that acknowledging that one is a sinner and asking for forgiveness and repenting from one's sins is equivalent to believing in someone as their savior? Doesn't Christian doctrine claim that everyone a sinner? If so, why does one need to acknowledge something that is part of the human condition? It would be analogous to acknowledging that you have eyes or that you are human...

Additionally, if I suffer a heart attack an EMT may save me from death but it involves none of the actions you ascribe as necessary for being "saved". I know many religionists who believe in deities and expect posthumous rewards for those beliefs that do not require those actions.

In addition, your description implies that not only is the belief essential but the belief may turn to disbelief over time. That is a teaching that I have seen vigorously debated among those calling themselves Christians.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Zakath
In addition, your description implies that not only is the belief essential but the belief may turn to disbelief over time. That is a teaching that I have seen vigorously debated among those calling themselves Christians.

That is something that is taught and believed by idiot Christians of which there are many, just like there are idiot atheists, which you are not.

Please keep challenging them Zakath, hopefully they will see the contradictions of their so-called faith.

 

[Gerald]

I asked of One-Eyed Jack:

Riddle me this, One-Eyed Jack: is the following statement true or false?

"There exist volitional entities, undetectable by human senses or instrumentation, who, interact with reality in a repeatable and verifiable fashion."

If your answer is yes, then please show irrefutable contemporary documentation demonstrating that such entities exist.

One-Eyed Jack asked:

How can they interact with reality in a repeatable and verifiable fashion if they're undetectable by human senses or instrumentation?

This is a sceptical statement from someone who says he believes God, a volitional entity, undetectable by human senses or instrumentation, who is said to interact with reality on a regular basis, exists.

What I posted also fits the generally accepted description of angels, demons, gremlins, etc.

So, Jack, are you interested in tackling this apparent discontinuity?

 

[Zakath]

Gerald,

Maybe he's a closet skeptic...

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Zakath

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Z Man
What's so hard to understand here? What I and Jack said go hand in hand. Besides, Jack defined how an individual becomes a genuine Christian; I defined how to tell if an individual, who did what Jack described, is genuine or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps it would be nice if you clarified such things when you post.

Roger doger. :thumb:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack described the cause, I described the effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite. The use of jargon by religionists is very confusing. You appear to describe two very different things. Jack wrote the following, describing actions:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...being born again means:
1. acknowledging that you're a sinner,
2. asking for forgiveness, and
3. repenting from your sins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wrote the following, but describing different actions:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...a Christian is just that;
1. Any person who believes in Jesus Christ as their savior.
2. Any person that continues in the faith.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He defined how to be a Christian, I defined what is a Christian.

Try stepping outside your belief system for a moment and attempt to see things as they look to someone who is on the outside, Z-man.

I wasn't born "saved"...

How should I understand that acknowledging that one is a sinner and asking for forgiveness and repenting from one's sins is equivalent to believing in someone as their savior? Doesn't Christian doctrine claim that everyone a sinner? If so, why does one need to acknowledge something that is part of the human condition? It would be analogous to acknowledging that you have eyes or that you are human...

The first step to overcoming a problem is to acknowledge you have one. In this case, our problem is our sin.

Additionally, if I suffer a heart attack an EMT may save me from death but it involves none of the actions you ascribe as necessary for being "saved".

Wait and see if the EMT will be there when you're standing before God, guilty of your sins. They can't save you from that...

I know many religionists who believe in deities and expect posthumous rewards for those beliefs that do not require those actions.

Believing in Christ is the only way to be saved.

Joh 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

In addition, your description implies that not only is the belief essential but the belief may turn to disbelief over time. That is a teaching that I have seen vigorously debated among those calling themselves Christians.

I don't believe a true, genuine saved born-again Christian can lose their belief in God. I do believe, however, that there are thousands of people that go to church, sing hymns, give offerings, and "play" Christian, but they don't last because they never truely believed.

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

I know there are some Christians out there that disagree with this doctrine, but it dosn't make them or me any less "saved".

 

[Zakath]

Zman,

Thank you for your reply.

Even though you assert you weren't born "saved" you appear to have been what you consider "saved" for long enough that you have difficulty conversing on these subjects without resorting to religious jargon. This makes it difficult to bridge the gulf caused by the preusppositions that underlie your position.

First, your assumption that I understand what you mean by "sin". The term has a wide variety of meaning depending entirely on the religious background of the person using it. As an atheist, I do think that you and I have a similar meaning for the term. To me, sin is something that causes unecessary harm or pain to another. To you, it sounds like it means something quite diferrent.

Second, you assert that "believing in Christ is the only way to be saved." Christ is the anglicized form of the Greek word for savior or messiah, particularly the Hebrew messiah. Since there are any number of persons who have either claimed or been awarded that title by various Jewish followers throughout the centuries, could you please explain which one you are speaking of and on what basis you make a determination that that particular individual is the correct one?

Third, as you mentioned above "... the only way to be saved" implies there is something for me to be saved from. What, in your opinion, is that?

Fourthly, you assert that many people "play Christian" because they do not "truly believe". What does that mean and how does one tell when someone has "truly believed" as compared to some other kind of belief.

Lastly, you claim to be in disagreement with other Christians on a matter of doctrine. How do you know that you're correct and they are wrong? Why doesn't your deity clearly spell out what is correct and what is not? Why does he permit so much confusion about what is correct and what is not when incorrect belief stands in the way of people understanding what he desires?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Zakath
Zman,

Thank you for your reply.

You're welcome.

Even though you assert you weren't born "saved" you appear to have been what you consider "saved" for long enough that you have difficulty conversing on these subjects without resorting to religious jargon. This makes it difficult to bridge the gulf caused by the preusppositions that underlie your position.

First, your assumption that I understand what you mean by "sin". The term has a wide variety of meaning depending entirely on the religious background of the person using it. As an atheist, I do think that you and I have a similar meaning for the term. To me, sin is something that causes unecessary harm or pain to another. To you, it sounds like it means something quite diferrent.

Sin is imperfection. Any action we take that inhibits us from perfection is wrong. I will also go on to say that sin is what keeps us seperated from God. It also creates lots of problems for us, though it may have started out as a pleasure or convienence. For example, pornagraphy. A lot of people are sucked into it thinking it harms no one, but it really damages relationships in that ones spouse loses that "intimate attraction" once that individual has recieved there satisfaction from porn.

Second, you assert that "believing in Christ is the only way to be saved." Christ is the anglicized form of the Greek word for savior or messiah, particularly the Hebrew messiah. Since there are any number of persons who have either claimed or been awarded that title by various Jewish followers throughout the centuries, could you please explain which one you are speaking of and on what basis you make a determination that that particular individual is the correct one?

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, or Christ. The reason for this is that He is the only person who took care of the "sin problem" amoung humankind. He is also the only individual who was "qualified" to do it. Yes, I know I wasn't alive when He was, so I don't have firsthand experience with His life, but that dosn't make any claims that have been made of Him in the Bible any less valid. I wasn't alive when Alexander the Great was around either, but I believe he existed, even though the first historical claims of his existence first appeared around 300 years after he was dead. But I really don't want to get into a debate about historical accuracy or what-not. With faith that God has given me, I believe in what the Bible says about Jesus, and nothing can take that belief away...

Third, as you mentioned above "... the only way to be saved" implies there is something for me to be saved from. What, in your opinion, is that?

IMHO, we all need to be saved from our sins. What we have done against God is outrageous, and we definitly deserve a consequence that is damning. We can't save ourselves from sin, because sin is our nature. We don't teach children how to steal cookies from the jar, or to lie, or to disrespect their parents or siblings; it all comes natural to them. God gave humanity the law so that we could know what sin is, but we definitly can not uphold to it. That's why God had to come to earth Himself and bear our punishment; death. The only way to be free from sin is to never commit it; become perfect, if you will. I believe the only individual to do this was Jesus. To me, God has shown what love really is by taking my punishment upon Himself when He Himself is God Almighty. I mean, who am I for Him to do this for little ol' me? Amazing....

Fourthly, you assert that many people "play Christian" because they do not "truly believe". What does that mean and how does one tell when someone has "truly believed" as compared to some other kind of belief.

They continue in the faith; that's how you can tell.

Lastly, you claim to be in disagreement with other Christians on a matter of doctrine. How do you know that you're correct and they are wrong? Why doesn't your deity clearly spell out what is correct and what is not? Why does he permit so much confusion about what is correct and what is not when incorrect belief stands in the way of people understanding what he desires?

I believe that if anyone is a true believer in Jesus as their savior, then they can't be wrong. Of course Christians will disagree about different things, but we all agree that God is love, and He displayed that love on the cross. This is what it's all about. I could care less if we disagree on what to eat or not, how to dress or not, when to go to church or not, etc. etc. These are minor details. As long as someone beleives in Jesus as their personal Savior, I will always count them as a Brother or Sister in Christ.

 

[shima]

>>Sin is imperfection. Any action we take that inhibits us from perfection is wrong. I will also go on to say that sin is what keeps us seperated from God. It also creates lots of problems for us, though it may have started out as a pleasure or convienence. For example, pornagraphy. A lot of people are sucked into it thinking it harms no one, but it really damages relationships in that ones spouse loses that "intimate attraction" once that individual has recieved there satisfaction from porn.<<

What if he doesn't have a spouse?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by shima
>>Sin is imperfection. Any action we take that inhibits us from perfection is wrong. I will also go on to say that sin is what keeps us seperated from God. It also creates lots of problems for us, though it may have started out as a pleasure or convienence. For example, pornagraphy. A lot of people are sucked into it thinking it harms no one, but it really damages relationships in that ones spouse loses that "intimate attraction" once that individual has recieved there satisfaction from porn.<<

What if he doesn't have a spouse?

It dosn't matter. A person should still keep their minds purified from this garbage. No one knows what the future holds, and an individual who may not be married now may be in the future. And, if when they were single they indulged in porn, they have wasted what intimacy belonged to their future spouse and threw it away to the pigs, this so called pornography. And besides, once you start, it's hard to stop.

What if a person never marries and deceides to stay single all their life? Well, from a Christian perspective, they should still keep themselves pure for God.

 

[Zakath]

Z Man,

Thank you for your post, it is very interesting. My comments follow...

Originally posted by Z Man
Sin is imperfection. Any action we take that inhibits us from perfection is wrong. I will also go on to say that sin is what keeps us seperated from God.

Just to be clear, are you intimating that these are two separate things or the same thing?

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, or Christ.

The Jewish Messiah? If so, then why do his followers generally reject Judaism?

The reason for this is that He is the only person who took care of the "sin problem" amoung humankind. He is also the only individual who was "qualified" to do it.

How so? How so you believe he did so and what were his qualifications?

Yes, I know I wasn't alive when He was, so I don't have firsthand experience with His life, but that dosn't make any claims that have been made of Him in the Bible any less valid.

That's OK, old as I am, even I wasn't around back then...

Unfortunately you've opened an entirely different line of discussion here - the validity and accuracy of the Bible. Are you interested in pursuing that, say on a separate thread?

Your choice.

I wasn't alive when Alexander the Great was around either, but I believe he existed, even though the first historical claims of his existence first appeared around 300 years after he was dead.

That's the first time I've heard that one. I would assume you mean Plutarch's or Arrian's writings. Here are a few other earlier references...

• Demonsthenes, (fourth century BC) tried to convince the leaders of Athens not to sign a treaty with Alexander (see "Demosthenes. The Olynthiac and Other Public Orations of Demosthenes. trans. Charles Rann Kennedy (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1852), 217-220.")
• A mosaic, a copy (circa 200 BC) of an original allegedly completed around 300 BC, represents Alexander leading troops at the battle of Issus. (see "The Alexander Mosaic." Mosaic. Ca. 200 B.C. Naples, Museo Nazionale.)
• Diodorous, a Roman historian writing in the first century BC, chronicled Alexander's sacking of Perspolis. (see Diodorus. Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes. trans. C. Bradford Welles, vol. 8 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933), 319-327.)

But I really don't want to get into a debate about historical accuracy or what-not. With faith that God has given me, I believe in what the Bible says about Jesus, and nothing can take that belief away.

So you're belief is based entirely on faith and not on evidence?

IMHO, we all need to be saved from our sins. What we have done against God is outrageous, and we definitly deserve a consequence that is damning. We can't save ourselves from sin, because sin is our nature. We don't teach children how to steal cookies from the jar, or to lie, or to disrespect their parents or siblings; it all comes natural to them.

What has a newborn infant "done against God"? What has a severely mentally retarded person "done against God"?

God gave humanity the law so that we could know what sin is, but we definitly can not uphold to it.

How do you explain Deuteronomy 30?

…if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. – Dt. 30 10b-14 – Emphasis mine - Z

That's why God had to come to earth Himself and bear our punishment; death.

This presents several logical problems:

• First, you appear to believe that an immortal entity died.
  
  Second, if you are speaking of what Christians refer to as "the crucifixion", then you are claiming that YHWH demanded human sacrifice.
  
  Third, you are claiming that the death of one man affected the entire race, even though they were not descended from him as Christians allege humans are from Adam.

The only way to be free from sin is to never commit it; become perfect, if you will. I believe the only individual to do this was Jesus.

Again, you are claiming that Moses (and YHWH) lied to Israel?

I believe that if anyone is a true believer in Jesus as their savior, then they can't be wrong.

So real Christians are "infallible" or incapable of error? You are saying essentially the same thing the Roman Catholics do, except you're extending the infallibility from the leaders of the Church to the entire Church. That's quite a claim! If it is true, how do you explain the twenty centuries of infighting among the Christians about who is "right" and who is "wrong" in major areas of doctrine.

I could care less if we disagree on what to eat or not, how to dress or not, when to go to church or not, etc. etc. These are minor details. As long as someone beleives in Jesus as their personal Savior, I will always count them

Two points:

1. What do you mean by "personal Savior"?

2. If you will study your church history you will find that Christians disagree on much, much more than a few "minor details". Do you really think a few minor details were what caused the killings of Christians by Christians for the last 1600 years or so?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Zakath
Z Man,

Thank you for your post, it is very interesting. My comments follow...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Z Man
Sin is imperfection. Any action we take that inhibits us from perfection is wrong. I will also go on to say that sin is what keeps us seperated from God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to be clear, are you intimating that these are two separate things or the same thing?

Well, you asked what my take on sin was and I replied that it was imperfection. Then, I just deceided to throw in there why it's a problem. No big deal; it didn't cost extra.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, or Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Jewish Messiah? If so, then why do his followers generally reject Judaism?

Yeah, the Jewish Messiah too. They just don't know it yet. I don't reject Judaism, persay, or look down upon them. I respect them greatly. They believe in the same thing we do other than the issue on Jesus being the Messiah. Besides, one day, when Jesus comes back in the end, the Jews will know He is their Messiah as well.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason for this is that He is the only person who took care of the "sin problem" amoung humankind. He is also the only individual who was "qualified" to do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How so? How so you believe he did so and what were his qualifications?

God requires one to be perfect in order to be holy and acceptable to Him, thus ensuring a relationship with Him. But mankind chooses not to attain perfection. The punishment for our sins is death. God knows we're doomed, so He deceided to come down and save us by showing us how to live a perfect life. Then, He bore our punishment, even though He was not guilty. He chose to sacrifice His own Son so that we could have a way to perfection. The only way is through His Son. He's the key to salvation.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know I wasn't alive when He was, so I don't have firsthand experience with His life, but that dosn't make any claims that have been made of Him in the Bible any less valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's OK, old as I am, even I wasn't around back then...

Unfortunately you've opened an entirely different line of discussion here - the validity and accuracy of the Bible. Are you interested in pursuing that, say on a separate thread?

Your choice.

Why don't we pursue a discussion on the validity and accuracy of some other written form of history, such as that on Alexander the Great, or George Washington, or some other great historical figure? It seems you guys, Atheists, want to pick apart the Bible and you request "extrodinary evidence", but when it comes to someone else who would not effect the way we live, you don't apply the same standards. Check out this site for more details:

http://www.carm.org/evidence/extraordinary.htm

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't alive when Alexander the Great was around either, but I believe he existed, even though the first historical claims of his existence first appeared around 300 years after he was dead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the first time I've heard that one. I would assume you mean Plutarch's or Arrian's writings. Here are a few other earlier references...

Demonsthenes, (fourth century BC) tried to convince the leaders of Athens not to sign a treaty with Alexander (see "Demosthenes. The Olynthiac and Other Public Orations of Demosthenes. trans. Charles Rann Kennedy (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1852), 217-220.")

A mosaic, a copy (circa 200 BC) of an original allegedly completed around 300 BC, represents Alexander leading troops at the battle of Issus. (see "The Alexander Mosaic." Mosaic. Ca. 200 B.C. Naples, Museo Nazionale.)

Diodorous, a Roman historian writing in the first century BC, chronicled Alexander's sacking of Perspolis. (see Diodorus. Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes. trans. C. Bradford Welles, vol. 8 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933), 319-327.)

Again, check out the site above.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I really don't want to get into a debate about historical accuracy or what-not. With faith that God has given me, I believe in what the Bible says about Jesus, and nothing can take that belief away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you're belief is based entirely on faith and not on evidence?

I have evidence: the Bible. It's the same kind of written evidence that we all have for any type of history.

Look, I didn't "choose" to just believe in all this "hunky-doorie" hoobla one day. I didn't believe in God because of some kind of evidence or "feeling". I believe in God because He came to me and showed me the Truth. He saved me. He gave me the faith it takes for one to totally change their lives and give up everything they know to follow some guy who claimed to be God some 2000 years ago. And I know that evidence is not what it is going to take to change your mind either. It's going to take an act of God...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, we all need to be saved from our sins. What we have done against God is outrageous, and we definitly deserve a consequence that is damning. We can't save ourselves from sin, because sin is our nature. We don't teach children how to steal cookies from the jar, or to lie, or to disrespect their parents or siblings; it all comes natural to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What has a newborn infant "done against God"? What has a severely mentally retarded person "done against God"?

They'll all be judged by God accordingly. I don't know their fate, and it's not for me to say.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God gave humanity the law so that we could know what sin is, but we definitly can not uphold to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you explain Deuteronomy 30?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. – Dt. 30 10b-14 – Emphasis mine - Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We cannot uphold to it because we choose not to.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why God had to come to earth Himself and bear our punishment; death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This presents several logical problems:
First, you appear to believe that an immortal entity died.

Second, if you are speaking of what Christians refer to as "the crucifixion", then you are claiming that YHWH demanded human sacrifice.

Third, you are claiming that the death of one man affected the entire race, even though they were not descended from him as Christians allege humans are from Adam.

First, Jesus was human, not immortal.

Second, YHWH didn't demand it from anybody; He choose to sacrifice His Son for us.

Third, I am claiming that because of Christ's death, those who believe have been set free from the punishment of sin, and that because of His ressurection, we have hope and a reason to believe.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only way to be free from sin is to never commit it; become perfect, if you will. I believe the only individual to do this was Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you are claiming that Moses (and YHWH) lied to Israel?

We could be perfect if we choose to stop sinning. But can we; no. Because we love sin so much, it is part of our culture; part of our nature. The only person who has lied to us is us.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that if anyone is a true believer in Jesus as their savior, then they can't be wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So real Christians are "infallible" or incapable of error? You are saying essentially the same thing the Roman Catholics do, except you're extending the infallibility from the leaders of the Church to the entire Church. That's quite a claim! If it is true, how do you explain the twenty centuries of infighting among the Christians about who is "right" and who is "wrong" in major areas of doctrine.

I guess you misunderstood me. You asked me, "How do you know that you're correct [in your doctine] and [other Christians] are wrong?" To me, disagreement in doctrine is so little important in comparision to what really matters; belief in Jesus Christ. To me, as long as a Christian believes in this key point to the belief, then it dosn't matter what else we disagree on; they're still a Christian. That's all I was implying.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could care less if we disagree on what to eat or not, how to dress or not, when to go to church or not, etc. etc. These are minor details. As long as someone beleives in Jesus as their personal Savior, I will always count them
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two points:

1. What do you mean by "personal Savior"?

2. If you will study your church history you will find that Christians disagree on much, much more than a few "minor details". Do you really think a few minor details were what caused the killings of Christians by Christians for the last 1600 years or so?

1. I mean just that. Christianity is about a relationship with God, nothing more or less. Jesus Christ is the only person, thing, object, reality, or whatever, that can save an individual. A person has to believe this on their own. Someone else can't walk down that road for them; they have to have a relationship with God on their own. It's personal. God wants personal relationships with us.

2. Zakath, I'm not religious and I could care less about Church history or why people killed who for what reasons. I don't care. Having a relationship with God is all that matters to me. Not religion, church history, church songs, offerings, whatever, just me and God. He's the only one who can save me. He's the only one that matters.