Why the Religious Will Perish with the Unbelievers

[God's Truth]

I believe in everything that the Bible says. You can't say that can you? You appear to be anti-Paul.

You misunderstand Paul.

Think about it more. Who but you and your kind misunderstand Paul? How do you misunderstand Paul? You think Paul says not of by obedience. Read 2 Peter 3:16, 17.

 

[Brother Ducky]

The purpose of the early church was to preach the Gospel. The apostles were trying to fulfill Jesus's commandment to go into all of the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, Mark 16:15.

You will not hear the "Historical Gospel" of Jesus Christ preached in todays organized church. The Gospel and organized religion are not compatible, never have been, never will be.

Must have been at least at some time, Paul, Timothy, and Titus established organized churches, and expected Christians to worship in them.

 

[beloved57]

So you deny the truth! Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies hating God Rom 5:10.

God does not save those who hate Him.

U deny the Truth. Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies hating God Rom 5:10

 

[Epoisses]

U deny the Truth. Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies hating God Rom 5:10

Christ reconciled the whole world with everyone who has ever lived past, present and future. The whole world stands redeemed, forgiven and accepted by the Father in Christ Jesus. The whole world stands condemned, unforgiven and lost forever in Adam. Ergo begins the battle of the flesh versus the Spirit to determine who we belong to.

 

[Robert Pate]

Must have been at least at some time, Paul, Timothy, and Titus established organized churches, and expected Christians to worship in them.

There were no organized churches. You have been brainwashed into believing that there must be a holy cathedral, a place of worship. That is 100% Catholic.

 

[jamie]

There were no organized churches. You have been brainwashed into believing that there must be a holy cathedral, a place of worship. That is 100% Catholic.

"After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm

Was Peter ever in Rome?

Was Paul ever in Rome?

 

[Robert Pate]

You misunderstand Paul.

Think about it more. Who but you and your kind misunderstand Paul? How do you misunderstand Paul? You think Paul says not of by obedience. Read 2 Peter 3:16, 17.

Paul never taught that we are justified by our obedience. Paul taught that we are justified by faith. Obedience is related to the law which you are under and will be judged by.

 

[jamie]

There were no organized churches.

A church is a group of people who assemble to worship God.

"And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." (Hebrews 10:24-25)

 

[Lon]

Yes, it does seem that Saul of Tarsus couldn't decide whether your god was an author of confusion or not. Compare 1 Corinthians 14:33.

:nono: Not the same and no contradiction.

The reason people go to see magicians is because they know it is an illusion. If they thought magic was real, they wouldn't find any entertainment value in it. But fiction has nothing to do with my point.

I disagree on both. The first just in passing, the disagreement isn't important but I can make the case for the disagreement. The second, inasmuch as it served for illustration of my point. An 'illusion' is a 'real' phenomena. It is something that appears differently than what it is. The difference, however, is real. The mimic octopus is just an octopus, but it can use illusion to defend itself. Whenever you mistake that octopus, you've been under a false impression, thus what you see is sometimes illusion. Sometimes, conversely, what you don't see, is not.

The scientific dates aren't illusion, they are provisional knowledge, subject to change due to further evidence coming to light. Every measurement has an uncertainty associated with it but perhaps PBS popular science shows are not the best means by which to understand this.

Provisional knowledge isn't true knowledge, however. If it were me? "I estimate" or "I believe this age due to this, and this..." but I'm MUCH more conscientious about such.

Can I take it you appreciate that if you look up the age of the earth in the Holy Wikipedia, it says 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years, meaning the earth is somewhere between 4,490,000,000 years and 4,590,000,000 years old? That doesn't mean a scientist wouldn't give a lecture during which the 4.5 billion years old figure was quoted. People in that audience might already know how science comes up with that figure, and what uncertainties and errors are associated with it.

Right. Such should always be accompanied with 'why' such is believed. We'd note that it is increasingly debated what differences in isotopes means in carbon and radiometric dating for instance.

Stuu: I suggest your [assumptions] are: 1. You exist; 2. What you observe is not an illusion (although perhaps you disagree); 3. There is a being that created the universe; 4. It is possible for humans to know what this being wants them to do.

I maintain they have to be separate categories. A deist would argue very strongly that he only needs 3, not 4, and 4 is not an automatic consequence of 3. I don't know how the logic of your last statement works.

Because if there is a deity, communication 'would' be a way of making such known. Granted there is innate ability to know God exists as well, which was part of what I was getting at with things 'making sense.' You mind works in a complex way such that 'assumed' is the evidence that I have an incredible computing mind able to make sense of my surroundings.

Well, since you can't come up with a single example of your libel I will accept that as a tacet withdrawal and apology. Like the apologists of the Catholic church, you have a funny way of saying sorry.

Nope. Don't. I'll be sure to bring it up the next time as well. It is not a one-time event with you. There is no 'libel.' Your bringing up the fallacy of composition, for example, didn't apply to Jsanford. He was saying your objection of comparative religions had no bearing on the 'existence' of a God, just who He is. critic. While you can call into question that coincidal evidence, you cannot call it a fallacy of composition BECAUSE it is the commonality between them.

Please link to where I have said that the unpleasant character of your god is a reason to think it doesn't exist

lain:

Did your god order the slaughter of the women and children of Amalek, or is that just like the wartime claim by humans that 'God is on our side'? If the latter, then the part played by the God character in this account is more historical fiction. If not, then it looks more like humans need saving from the God character, which is another good reason to reject Jesus as a 'saviour'. Which way would you play that one?

Stuart

You might even enjoy the posturing and arrogance of the atheist and the spiritual blindness.

Nope. In this case, it was against your poor treatment of Jsanford.

Although religions, especially islam, cause their followers to make the religion into the same thing as the follower's identity, nevertheless we should all play the ball not the man. The only people I call liar are 'public' creationists, and that is not people on ToL.

I take the credit for what appears beside my name, and I am solely responsible for any mistakes. Of course there is a heck of a lot of thinking of many capable and pioneering people, and a great deal of painstaking scientific work done by phenomenally dedicated people, whose work I merely quote when I write. I have pioneered very little. They deserve the credit for their work.

Yeah, I thought it was just you all along, not 'we' by the token. Rather than trying to argue with 'who you think is on your side' I'll just argue it with you by yourself. There is no 'we.'

Is that a personal threat, or a threat that you will be rhetorically brilliant? If the latter then I look forward to you writing good arguments in response.

Stuart

Really? That came across as a 'threat' to you??? It was your post. It was wrong-headed and wrong-hearted to Jsanford. You know it, I know I, and you bet, I'll have you removed from this thread if such abuse continues. You'll be adding nothing but mean-spirited trolling at that point. It won't be the first time you've been called on such either. So yeah, change your tune. THAT building needs to come down. There is no room for such mean-spirited abuses on TOL. Jsanford wasn't impolite or unkind.

 

[Brother Ducky]

There were no organized churches. You have been brainwashed into believing that there must be a holy cathedral, a place of worship. That is 100% Catholic.

First if all, you must be thinking of someone else, as I am Reformed, not Catholic.

Secondly, there has to be a place of worship if there is worship. Cathedral, house, park. All places.

Thirdly, Paul, Timothy, and Titus established organized churches. They had elders and deacons. Some elders preached. It is expected that Christians would meet together on a regular basis.

Rail against organized religion as much as you wish. It is what Paul under the guidance of Christ Jesus set up. Either go with what Paul wanted, show why it does not apply today, or just continue to be unbiblical.

 

[God's Truth]

Paul never taught that we are justified by our obedience. Paul taught that we are justified by faith. Obedience is related to the law which you are under and will be judged by.

God did not nail obedience to the cross. He did not put away all His words about our obeying. You misunderstand Paul. Paul would not ever tell anyone that they didn't have to obey.

 

[God's Truth]

U deny the Truth. Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies hating God Rom 5:10

You know you are stumped.

 

[beloved57]

You know you are stumped.

It appears u are.

 

[beloved57]

God did not nail obedience to the cross. He did not put away all His words about our obeying. You misunderstand Paul. Paul would not ever tell anyone that they didn't have to obey.

Those Christ obeyed for are made righteous by the obedience of One Rom 5:19

 

[musterion]

Those Christ obeyed for are made righteous by the obedience of One Rom 5:19

Invalid post! You don't believe that!

 

[Stuu]

Not the same and no contradiction.

Then there is the supposed Tower of Babel, one of the poorest models of language evolution ever conceived, but raising another question to answer about authorship of confusion.

An 'illusion' is a 'real' phenomena. It is something that appears differently than what it is. The difference, however, is real. The mimic octopus is just an octopus, but it can use illusion to defend itself. Whenever you mistake that octopus, you've been under a false impression, thus what you see is sometimes illusion. Sometimes, conversely, what you don't see, is not.

So far you have failed to be convincing on this point because you keep giving examples in which the illusion is known by someone. But what I am saying to you is I cannot know for sure whether, despite my most skeptical efforts to observe, the universe is putting on some kind of facade that succeeds in putting me off ever being able to discern its workings.

I have to assume that what I see is reasonably what I get, and perhaps part of that is the assumption that humans are capable enough to generate meaningful knowledge. That all remains an assumption for all humans and therefore is beyond your ability as much as it is beyond mine to really know.

Provisional knowledge isn't true knowledge, however.

Provisional scientific knowledge is the highest quality of knowledge we have, and often the measure of that is how much respect it gets from people who work within different epistemological frameworks (in my opinions the ones that aren't as good!). 'Truth' is a personal philosophical position, not a statement of objective fact. The closest you get to objective fact is the provisional knowledge of science.

If it were me? "I estimate" or "I believe this age due to this, and this..." but I'm MUCH more conscientious about such.

It could well be a failing of scientists that the nature of scientific knowledge is not properly understood by a public audience, but then I often think that if parents who are bringing up their children in some religion or other were honest they would tell their children that the tenets of that religion are what they believe, but they could be completely wrong so take some care with it.

Right. Such should always be accompanied with 'why' such is believed. We'd note that it is increasingly debated what differences in isotopes means in carbon and radiometric dating for instance.

There is no actual debate about the meaning of radioisotope dating data within science, only within the circles of creationist fantasy thinking.

Because if there is a deity, communication 'would' be a way of making such known... Granted there is innate ability to know God exists as well, which was part of what I was getting at with things 'making sense.' You mind works in a complex way such that 'assumed' is the evidence that I have an incredible computing mind able to make sense of my surroundings.

Yes, I think you run into the problem of assumption 2 there. You have to assume that the communication you are getting is indeed the deity mentioned in 3, and not an illusion, and I think it would be a minor point to rephrase 4 in those terms, but you still have 4 in essence.

Nope. Don't. I'll be sure to bring it up the next time as well. It is not a one-time event with you. There is no 'libel.' Your bringing up the fallacy of composition, for example, didn't apply to Jsanford. He was saying your objection of comparative religions had no bearing on the 'existence' of a God, just who He is. critic. While you can call into question that coincidal evidence, you cannot call it a fallacy of composition BECAUSE it is the commonality between them.

No, his fallacy of composition was to say that because the bible can be shown to be historically accurate (which it can in some respects but not all) that therefore the supernatural and other claims about Jesus should be seen to have more credibility. That is certainly the fallacy of composition.

Stuu: Please link to where I have said that the unpleasant character of your god is a reason to think it doesn't exist

Did your god order the slaughter of the women and children of Amalek, or is that just like the wartime claim by humans that 'God is on our side'? If the latter, then the part played by the God character in this account is more historical fiction. If not, then it looks more like humans need saving from the God character, which is another good reason to reject Jesus as a 'saviour'. Which way would you play that one?

Good grief, seriously? That is what you cite in response? In case you need it spelling out: This says that the unpleasant character of your god is cause to reject Jesus as a saviour, not cause to think it doesn't exist. It even gives you the opportunity to say that actually this is not an demonstration of unpleasant character, it is merely humans making claims on behalf of the god. Once again, I recommend reading.

Nope. In this case, it was against your poor treatment of Jsanford.

What was?

Really? That came across as a 'threat' to you???

Well no actually. I don't think you would physically threaten me, and I don't think your arguments are going to threaten mine, which is disappointing. I still hold hope that you will properly devastate something I write and give me cause to think deeply about my own attempt at argument. It's the same with creationists here, I always hope I will learn something new or interesting, and sometime the claims have fabulous entertainment value in their absurdity, but no one ever says anything really challenging from a religious point of view. It's all quite dull too often, which is one of the reasons I gave for rejecting Jesus as a saviour. It's just not interesting.

It was your post. It was wrong-headed and wrong-hearted to Jsanford. You know it, I know I, and you bet, I'll have you removed from this thread if such abuse continues. You'll be adding nothing but mean-spirited trolling at that point. It won't be the first time you've been called on such either. So yeah, change your tune. THAT building needs to come down. There is no room for such mean-spirited abuses on TOL. Jsanford wasn't impolite or unkind.

You are perfectly entitled to find what I write mean-spirited, and have me removed, and whatever. But you know full well that I do not play the man, I play the ball, I argue as objectively as I can and I don't call people names. I feel no malice whatever towards you or Jsanford or anyone particularly. I happen to think christians are victims, not perpetrators of evil (although I might reserve a slightly different opinion for 'public' creationists, who are liars for their god, a bizarre activity).

So, had you considered that whatever challenge I represent to you, and clearly I have you worried enough to somehow cause you to rant in quite an aggressive tone, it can only be a good thing that your beliefs are properly challenged? After all, what good is your faith if it turns out to be a fair-weather friend, unable to deal with the real challenges? Does your life consist of having challenges banned from the thread / your life / the discussions initiated by other people?

Stuart

 

[oatmeal]

Why do you need a church?

The early church met in each others homes. There was no paid staff. Beware of religion, especially organized religion. Most of the teaching is anti-Gospel and anti-Christ. organized religion and the "Historical Gospel" are not compatible.

That is correct. The early church met in peoples homes. They learned that from Jesus Christ who we see spent a lot of time teaching and healing in peoples homes. God is spirit and is everywhere present. He is as much in peoples hones as anywhere else.

Serving and loving God needs to start in our personal lives and that is where it must always center.

Having people meet in homes is Gods order for this age of grace.

The church is not a building but those who answered Gods call to redemption and salvation.

The church is the believers

 

[Robert Pate]

That is correct. The early church met in peoples homes. They learned that from Jesus Christ who we see spent a lot of time teaching and healing in peoples homes. God is spirit and is everywhere present. He is as much in peoples hones as anywhere else.

Serving and loving God needs to start in our personal lives and that is where it must always center.

Having people meet in homes is Gods order for this age of grace.

The church is not a building but those who answered Gods call to redemption and salvation.

The church is the believers

It was the Catholics that built expensive cathedrals and then decked them out with all kinds of religious garbage. Those that worship the Lord worship him in spirit and in truth, no cathedral needed.

 

[jsanford108]

Shall we take Assumption Number 3: there is a being that created the universe? If that assumption is correct then there is sound logic in forming a system of belief that fears that power and might try to get into its good books. Those are both key themes in the Judeo-christian scriptures.

Assumption 3 is a conclusion, extrapolated in a different manner from the first two. Assumption 1, being "I exist," (which I love the Descartes method usage, bravo on that), this is a conclusion based on observable reality. Assumption 2, likewise, a conclusion based on observable reality. Assumption 3 should be, "something caused the universe." Jumping to a God created universe skips the first logical conclusion that can be reached from observable realities, which is the necessity of cause.

Even though the Latin root of the word science means 'to know', actually that only refers to the body of provisional knowledge acquired through the scientific method. Really, science is a verb that indicates following the set of principles as I outlined above.

Science is a noun. I understand how you can use science as an action, but then you are "using science," thus making "using" the verb. Sure, one can use slang and say "Science it up," but that is slang, implying improper use of vocabulary.

You seem to try and skirt around my point, being that Logic, Math, Science, etc are all abstract ideas, that we accept due to them being "real," yet lacking empirical proof of their existence.

You have elements such as torture and death of a man-god; dying and rising gods; virgin birth; and 25th December as a date with some resonance for different reasons. So I would accept the criticism regarding my use of 'just another', and maybe offer instead that the mythology of Jesus is a different combination of the same old man-god story elements, many of which are Mesopotamian, but not exclusively. Everywhere from Rome, through Greece and Egypt to further East stories with these same elements have arisen time and again.

If it is okay with you, I would like to skip discussing the parallels of archaic religions, as I believe I can best address that in a different point, versus going at it head on.

I think you are being disingenuous by not addressing my question, and by persisting with the strawman argument that knowing about a religious salvation mythology can be called 'historical knowledge'. As you will appreciate, and can read from my other statements, I don't accept that there is anything historical at all about a man being a saviour. It is a con, one of the biggest ever perpetrated on humanity.

Okay, I think you cleared it up a little for me with this statement. So, rather that using your original point, comparing physical necessities with the "necessity of a savior," you rather claim that there is no history of a man being the divine savior? Am I correct in this analysis?

And there is not one eyewitness account of Jesus in existence. No one who ever saw Jesus wrote about it, as far as we can tell. All you have is hearsay, at best. That is all scholars have to go on when they conclude, on balance of probability that Jesus existed and was executed by the Romans. There is some support for his baptism as well. And that's it, circumstance and hearsay. And it is easy to establish that much of the gospel writing is made up, as I explained earlier.

And, false. First, the Gospel according to John was composed by an Apostle of Christ. Matthew, also, an Apostle, boasts the single closest biographical account in all of history, being written 20 years after the events described in his work (worthy of note; his Gospel account contains portions written in early Aramaic, the language of the time). Both of these men literally walked with Christ. There are letters from early Romans, for example, Tacitus, writing in the early 100's AD, specifically mentioning Christ, Christ's Crucifixion by Pilate, early Christians in Jerusalem and Rome, etc. Here is a quick Google search link with several secular accounts of Christ:
https://probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources-2/

More evidence below.

Historical fiction, remember? The fallacy of composition, remember?

Let us examine this claim of the Bible being historical fiction. Compare other historically accepted texts, all considered as factual. Herodotus' Histories, believed not to have been composed by Herodotus. Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War. Xenophon of Athens work, Hellenica. All of these ancient texts, and more, are considered to be factual historical accounts. Despite lacking peer review and outside sources. All of these detail events that are decades past.

The writings of the New Testament were composed in less than 50 years of each other. Matthew's Gospel, the author having lived with Christ, was composed between 50-55 AD. It was written in Palestine. Mark's Gospel, composed in 60 AD, was written in Rome. Luke, a noted historian, composed his Gospel account and Acts of the Apostles in 62 (some scholars suggest 67) and 63 AD, respectively. Luke's writing occurred in Rome. John's Gospel was composed latest, near the end of his life, in 98 AD, written in Ephesus. The writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have the same events occurring, with claims being identical (the differences being the order of events, or the exact vocabulary used). Early authors cite the Gospels as early as the last years of the first century. St Clement of Rome mentions the four books between 92 and 101 AD. St Ignatius of Antioch, who died around 107 AD, spoke of the four books. Papias, a bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, first refers to the attributed authors of their Gospels, around 130 AD.

When scholars speak of the "historicity" of the Gospels, they mean that the accounts are true accounts of what Christ said and did, as witnessed by various individuals. They are reporting things which were not a systematic history, but a genuine accounting of events. Using various historical sciences, scholars check the Gospel accounts using historico-critical methods by verifying them with various sources, such as pagan/secular sources, confirming the events as factual events, then crosschecking them with their religious counterparts. Thus, ensuring the historical facts being accurately represented in the Gospel accounts.

These methods, utilized by various scholars of varying religious or atheist backgrounds, thus proves the Bible as a historical source. It was composed within the lifetime of the authors, and details events that they witnessed or witnessed by vast numbers of people.

What is your point about the two Herods? Exactly what Roman letters are you describing? Do you mean Josephus? Who?

My point with the various Herod's as rulers in the Jewish regions is that there are more than one Herod. Your claim was that Herod never required a census or tried to slaughter kids under the age of two. Which is true for one Herod, but not true for the Herod that history identifies as ruling in the first years BC.

As for the various Roman sources, there is Lucian, Josephus, and Tacitus, etc. These I believe are noted in the link from the Google search.

Regarding the alleged exodus, who would gain the most from finding the evidence for the exodus? You might think it would be the Israeli government, wouldn't you. What could be more useful than digging up the title deeds for the state of Israel? Well, as it turns out, it was archeologists at Tel Aviv university who did the work, and despite a pretty exhaustive effort, they demonstrated that the expected evidence from that many people living in that bit of desert for that length of time, is non-existent. They had the most to gain, and they say it's not real. The archaeology of the exodus has been going on for more than a century. Nothing!

Who is performing this archaeology of the exodus that has produced no evidence? Because, there are villages found along the supposed path of the Hebrews, bearing Jewish artifacts. There are glyphs in Egypt which depict the exodus of the Hebrews. There are several sites which bear extensive evidence of Hebrews passing through during the estimated decade of the exodus. Most historians and scholars agree that there is no evidence against the exodus. The arguments come from under which Pharaoh was ruling during this event.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

I am glad you agree. That is a quote from George Wald, renowned atheist. I love that quote. What I love most about it is the appeal to logic. What I find ironic about that quote is that directly after this, Wald says how he believes in Spontaneous Generation, because he refuses to accept the alternate explanation of intelligent design. (a completely different topic, but I just wanted to expound upon the hypocritical nature of Wald dismissing and ignoring evidence that alludes to theories he doesn't like)

Historical records support the events described in the Bible. Just as historical records support the events described in Homer's Iliad. You can dismiss the supernatural influences, as that is the skeptical approach. But to deny the historical accuracy is akin to Wald, rejecting evidence that is detrimental to his preferred beliefs. When one prefers to accept falsehoods and myth, they are rejecting logic. Thus, to continue to insist that the Bible is not historically accurate, that no one witnessed Christ, or that there is no evidence to support it, then you are being illogical and preferring falsehoods and your own myths.

 

[Robert Pate]

You two have missed it. The sole purpose of the Bible is to reveal Jesus Christ and his Gospel, this it does very well. just because there are a few errors in the Bible does not take away from it, it actually enhances it. The writers of the Bible were not scholars, they were ordinary men that were trying to record what they had seen and heard.