Atheist?

[Mike]

But if the atheist is wrong, there will be horrible consequences in ignoring the Truth.

Not all consequences of an atheist being wrong are horrible though. One of the consequence is that he is reincarnated over and over(assuming another religion is true and Christianity wrong).

Here's a question and I think ivdavid could entertain this as well.
According to Christianity, what is life? ( how do we define one alive, eg: feelings, senses ..etc )

I'll respond to your second part when I have more time. I just popped in and wanted to explain my point. This was from a Christian perspective and points to THAT Truth. I an atheist is wrong and Christianity is right, there will be consequences for the atheist. God has revealed Himself to everyone in some way. They can respond based on that revelation or not. If they reject the revelation, they are deciding not to accept His grace and have nothing to complain about when their end comes.

 

[ivdavid]

Chattymute,

The Golden Rule is also relative. I think most people don't want to be a slave...

Most or all? Do you think some people would actually want their will to be subjugated to another's will by force?

You've got it backwards. I arrived at slavery being wrong because of the Golden Rule. I consider the Golden Rule to be a fair standard for morality in most cases, though I could still offend someone/mistreat them because of what I said above. That makes it relative.

Let me get this straight - You say slavery is wrong. But your saying that might offend/mistreat some people. Hence it's relative. Is this what you're saying?
If that's what you're saying, then I ask - who are these people who'd get offended? Say, they are the ones who practice slavery and you've just offended them by saying slavery is wrong because they think it is right. Does that make them also actually right? If you're right and they're right, then it's a logical fallacy. So either you're right or they're right or there's nothing right/wrong about slavery. Which one is it?
If you're saying you're right, then you are also saying that these offended people are wrong - thereby again making the statement - slavery is wrong - as a universal absolute law.
If not, then it's just a matter of preference, right?

Don't lose your patience on this - let's see where this discussion heads...

 

[kpd560]

Absolute proof is almost entirely confined to mathematics so if you require this of the flat universe theory you'll be waiting forever. Our understanding of gravity is just a theory but I assume you conduct your life as if it was established law. Some theories are rather tenuous like string theory. Other theories are as solid as gravity like evolution. Flat universe theory is rather young I believe but already has significant evidence supporting it. You are, of course, free to ignore it if that's what you want.

It looks like you pick and choose some theories and evidence that backs them up as well. You seem to have no problem taking the leap of faith where there are holes in the theories that support your beliefs.

You must really want to believe that because nothing I said should have given you that idea.

Just out of curiosity, how do you convince yourself that the claims of the Bible are proven and demonstrated?

I hope this isn’t intended as belittling as it comes across. First (and I understand this is foreign to you) I don’t convince myself. The Holy Spirit leads me to be convinced. Some things in the Bible obviously can’t be reproduced. Taking the journals which are now books in the Bible along with supporting documentation from non-Christian historians of the time solidifies the authenticity of New Testament scripture for me.

That was a straightforward question. Your response that it sounded belittling indicates you have an unreasonable amount of sensitivity in this area. Can you briefly outline the most important documentation from non-Christian historians that validates the authenticity of the New Testament? Not surprisingly, I was unaware of any but I'm always open to more evidence.

I can understand your hope. I lost a 12 year old son 6 years ago in a car accident and I would like nothing better than to be with him again some day.

What can I say to this? You had a horrible loss, and I’m truly sorry to hear about that. Was this instrumental in your loss of faith, or were you always a nonbeliever? The Christian would say that in our fallen world, bad things happen as a result of sin. And there’s always something good than can come from the most tragic event. Who can counsel someone who has had a still-born baby better than someone who has gone thru that tragedy herself? I’m not downplaying the pain you have felt since it happened. And I hope my response doesn’t cause further anger. It’s not intended to. I’m just saying how Christians try to make sense out of, and deal with, horrible things. It’s been said that God whispers to us in the good times and screams to us in the bad.

I haven't believed in anything supernatural since I was 11 or 12 years old so Tyler's death had no impact on my belief. As I said, I do hope to see him again but even my fervent desire cannot make me believe in the supernatural which has zero evidence. I'm quite capable of keeping belief and hope separate in my mind. I don't wish to provoke but maybe that ability is a fundamental difference between us.

Pascals wager? Please, thats so sleazy. It's as if a god would favor those people who could make a clever wager based on potential gains and losses. I don't want to preach but since you ask, I get to appreciate this life for what it is and not a stepping stone to some hoped for afterlife. I don't spend years of my life performing what I hope are the proper rituals to the right god. I like to think that I can appreciate the universe at face value without imagining some supernatural entity pulling the puppet strings. I guess I just can't make myself believe in something based on what is, to me, insufficient evidence.

My comment was only to suggest that if an atheist is correct, the outcome is “nothingâ€. But if the atheist is wrong, there will be horrible consequences in ignoring the Truth. We don’t make a “clever wagerâ€. We listen to the Holy Spirit and respond. We also consider all the evidence available. Christians find much joy in this life. We’re not intended to live our lives with our heads hung low. Those that do, do not seem to fully accept the Gospel. And I don’t perform “the proper rituals†for God. That’s legalism. I simply accept and love Jesus. It’s about a “relationshipâ€, not doing this or that.

My bad, I thought you were pointing out that after death an atheist faces either nothing or eternal bloody torture whereas the Christian faces either nothing or eternal bliss so for a smart man the obvious choice is to be Christian. You weren't so we'll just let that go. It's interesting that you perform no rituals (proper or improper apparently). What denomination do you belong to?

 

[Mike]

[quote}That was a straightforward question. Your response that it sounded belittling indicates you have an unreasonable amount of sensitivity in this area. Can you briefly outline the most important documentation from non-Christian historians that validates the authenticity of the New Testament? Not surprisingly, I was unaware of any but I'm always open to more evidence. [/quote]

Sorry it’s taken me a while to respond, but I’ve been curled up shaking in the corner from your initial comment. I was just going the extra mile trying to establish a measure of decency between us. I wonder if you have this attitude with everyone you come in contact with. I’ll see what I can do about my “unreasonable amount of sensitivity in this area". In this response, and with the comments about your son, I felt I was simply taking the high road. But, if we do have future exchange, I’ll be sure to keep it business-like and on point. Obviously, you’ve heard the names, but reject the validity of such writers as Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Tranquillas, Thallus, Pliny & Lucian. It wouldn’t be “more†evidence for you. It would be that which you already dismiss.

My bad, I thought you were pointing out that after death an atheist faces either nothing or eternal bloody torture whereas the Christian faces either nothing or eternal bliss so for a smart man the obvious choice is to be Christian. You weren't so we'll just let that go. It's interesting that you perform no rituals (proper or improper apparently). What denomination do you belong to?

Of course there I things I do that might be considered “ritualsâ€. I reject your assumption that I do them to “get right†with God. Whatever I do is a response to His love and does not do anything for me to get right with Him. I can say there is nothing I can possibly do to get right with God. He did the doing. I simply believe. That’s what gets me right. Whatever things I do are not out of necessity. I choose to do them, because they bring me joy and I believe they bring Him joy. But they don’t make me right with Him. His greatest joy is in that once I didn’t believe, and now I do.

 

[kpd560]

That was a straightforward question. Your response that it sounded belittling indicates you have an unreasonable amount of sensitivity in this area. Can you briefly outline the most important documentation from non-Christian historians that validates the authenticity of the New Testament? Not surprisingly, I was unaware of any but I'm always open to more evidence.

Sorry it’s taken me a while to respond, but I’ve been curled up shaking in the corner from your initial comment. I was just going the extra mile trying to establish a measure of decency between us. I wonder if you have this attitude with everyone you come in contact with. I’ll see what I can do about my “unreasonable amount of sensitivity in this area". In this response, and with the comments about your son, I felt I was simply taking the high road. But, if we do have future exchange, I’ll be sure to keep it business-like and on point. Obviously, you’ve heard the names, but reject the validity of such writers as Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Tranquillas, Thallus, Pliny & Lucian. It wouldn’t be “more†evidence for you. It would be that which you already dismiss.

I have an attitude? I assure you I have no attitude. I strive to always be civil and decent even though I'm a godless atheist who doesn't know better. ;) (That's a joke btw.) As a matter of fact, I didn't know about the writers you mention but I'll do some research and get back to you. Thanks for that.

My bad, I thought you were pointing out that after death an atheist faces either nothing or eternal bloody torture whereas the Christian faces either nothing or eternal bliss so for a smart man the obvious choice is to be Christian. You weren't so we'll just let that go. It's interesting that you perform no rituals (proper or improper apparently). What denomination do you belong to?

Of course there I things I do that might be considered “ritualsâ€. I reject your assumption that I do them to “get right†with God. Whatever I do is a response to His love and does not do anything for me to get right with Him. I can say there is nothing I can possibly do to get right with God. He did the doing. I simply believe. That’s what gets me right. Whatever things I do are not out of necessity. I choose to do them, because they bring me joy and I believe they bring Him joy. But they don’t make me right with Him. His greatest joy is in that once I didn’t believe, and now I do.

You've taken exception to something I didn't say. I said something about performing rituals to the right god not performing rituals to get right with God. I'll be more careful with what I write to you in the future.
Best!

 

[ivdavid]

Here's a question and I think ivdavid could entertain this as well.
According to Christianity, what is life? ( how do we define one alive, eg: feelings, senses ..etc )

You must realize that your question is a very broad one and no one answer would do justice to it. But i'll give it a shot anyway.

How do we define one to be alive? Please allow me to share a little incident with my brother - I was trying to start our really-old car and it didn't start at all. My brother came up and asked me what was happening and I said that the battery was dead. He laughed out and asked me rhetorically, how the battery could ever have been alive to go dead - he did mean it as a stupid joke, but that got me thinking. I referred to the battery going dead because it no longer served its purpose - it wasn't working - it wasn't doing what it was supposed to be doing.

So, my Christian way of defining one to be alive is when they are serving the purpose they are created for. And God's purpose in creating man is to love him and be loved by him. Man, out of his love for God, should be willing to do God's will, as reverence, in honor and faith to rejoice in the Lord, praising and glorifying Him. If man isn't fulfilling this purpose, If man is apart from God, then I'd say he's not alive.

I derive this personally from these verses and others -
Luk 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Jesus implies that some who are physically alive are also considered as dead, because they are not spiritually alive.
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Jesus here says that life is to be found in Him alone - so anyone apart from Him is not alive.

 

[logical bob]

Obviously, you’ve heard the names, but reject the validity of such writers as Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Tranquillas, Thallus, Pliny & Lucian.

I'm familiar with Josephus and Tacitus, and they do seem to suggest that there was a historical Jesus who was crucifed under Pilate. Although I recognise the other names, I've never heard them connected to the New Testament. Could you tell us more?

 

[ivdavid]

God claims that he wants us to make a free choice.....

I don't see any Scriptural validity to a generalization of this statement in the sense that you mean. May I ask where you got this from?

God says no such thing as giving us 'free' choice in the sense that you mean. What God gives us is the ability to choose - this we call, freedom of will.

Anyway, ability to choose is not the same as what you mean by 'free choice'. And you make it seem as if God's main and only desire was to create man with a will. God didn't primarily want to create man with will - God primarily wanted to create man whom He could love and who would love Him in return and glorify Him. And to enable man to do that, God gave human will - robots who have no will cannot respond to love. Now note, God's primary desire is still to love man and be loved by man. And God still has created perfect creations that glorify God in every way. And man is lacking in nothing and is joyous and peaceful, rejoicing in the love of God and loving Him with all his soul. Man is given responsibility over all other of earth's creations and is free to love his own kind.

Things so far look fine. Human will, when in accordance with God's will, is doing fine. Man is taught God's will and is commanded to put his faith in God's goodness and wisdom. So, with the ability to choose comes the responsibility to choose. Man can exercise his ability to choose between so many good things(in which he has 'free choice') which would make him righteously happy while exercising the responsibility to choose from among the good things only and not anything evil. Evil desire is desiring what is not according to God's will - these evil desires are called lusts - lust of the flesh, lust of the eye and pride of life, self-pride being the worst of it all. When these evil desires are indulged in, sin is committed.

So, human will has the ability to choose but while it can choose good, it can also choose evil. If God intervened and prevented man from being allowed to choose evil, then there wouldn't be any real human will that can choose. So as we see, though God wants man to choose only good, it is man who has to willingly make that choice. Why does God want man to choose only good - it is because God is perfectly Holy and He cannot tolerate even the slightest trace of evil and being Just and Righteous in nature, God would have to eradicate evil, else He'll be called evil. And God doesn't want to eradicate man when he chooses evil, so He warns him to prevent such a scenario from happening (our conscience). Even when we ignore and do so - He still shows us His love and mercy by asking us to repent and turn to Him because of Christ's sacrifice to save us. When we turn this offer of salvation down too, then God's just wrath is poured out.

So to summarize, God wants man to do only good - that good involves love towards God and towards fellow creations - love needs ability to choose - ability to choose may be abused - man can choose evil and does, thereby incurring the just wrath of God - God sends a Saviour in Christ to save us from the wrath, thereby showing us His love - God calls people to repent and turn towards Him - many remain evil - God eradicates evil on the Last Day while fulfilling His primary purpose and desire in the ones that have been saved by God's grace through faith.

To give you one more of my crude illustrations - if you're standing at the edge of the top of a building, you do have the ability to choose - you can choose to jump or you can choose to get back. Just because you have the ability to choose, doesn't mean you can pick one arbitrarily - you also have the responsibility to choose - the choice to get back. Now that is a commandment - do not commit suicide. Even though it is a commandment, you do still have the ability to choose to not obey it. I shout a warning to you, saying you'd die if you choose to jump. If you ignore it, either saying that you wouldn't die or that I was being unfair in warning you and influencing you against some 'free' choice of yours - then, you would die.

Now, you might say that no person in his sane mind would ever do the above thing - but that's what's happening in God's case. When God calls out to that person to get back to Him, warning him that he'd die if he didn't choose to get back, the person hates God so much for no just cause, that he decides to close his eyes and jump instead of coming back. There is so much more theological doctrine on this - I might not be the right person to deal with all that. I suggest you go through some of the doctrines discussed in the apologetics board or elsewhere on the net.

You keep asking why God isn't giving us 'free' choice ie the permission to choose both good and evil. That's His very nature - He can't tolerate evil. Besides, I'd ask, why would one want to choose evil - choosing good gives you the most joyous happiness and peace possible - so why would one argue with God against His perfect offer. Is it because we are all so evil and rebellious in our hearts against God that we want to stay away from Him?

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

 

[ivdavid]

I'm concerned here about the rise of personal emotions in a discussion that is meant to be impersonal. So, I'm going to take this post and a few more to clarify my intent -

What about someone who has never heard of God?

Everybody does know God - some just suppress the truth and give it different names or attribute it to something else. God does reveal Himself to a person who truly and justly seeks and continues to seek after truth in faith.

Ah, no. You're assuming that every culture has a religion or worships a God. Buddhist is good example of a religion without a God. Hinduism is also completely different than Christianity with completely different concepts.

This is a part of our discussion that I want to re-analyze.
Your question was about how it would be fair to penalize a person who's never heard of God.
I'm going to split my response into parts and show you how I arrived at the above statement from the Scriptures -

Everybody does know God - some just suppress the truth and give it different names or attribute it to something else. God does reveal Himself to a person who truly and justly seeks and continues to seek after truth in faith.
Rom 1:19 because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them.
Rom 1:20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.

Everybody does know God - some just suppress the truth and give it different names or attribute it to something else. God does reveal Himself to a person who truly and justly seeks and continues to seek after truth in faith.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Everybody does know God - some just suppress the truth and give it different names or attribute it to something else. God does reveal Himself to a person who truly and justly seeks and continues to seek after truth in faith.
Rom 1:21 Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools
Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.

So you see, people did know that the true Living God existed and that they were to seek the truth in Him but they suppressed the truth in their vain imaginations. They imagined God to be this and that instead of accepting what He was revealing to them - why? because of their sinful rebellion to be part of anything but the true Living God. This is why all world religions have that underlying similarity - God has revealed Himself to all people - the differences arise in people accepting God as He is or imagining many different things to suit themselves instead of seeking the truth.

Have you noticed that Christianity is the only religion that talks of salvation by God's grace through faith, which is then evidenced by good works, while all other religions talk about salvation by good works alone? Do you see why it is? We do not want to submit to God's rule because of our sinful rebellion and self-pride. Even in salvation, we want to claim some part and self-effort. We want to retain a modicum of self-righteousness that we can feed our self-pride with.

Anyway, by implication, I wanted to convey that such people are anyway rebellious and sinful and deserve judgement and condemnation.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right,
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers,
Rom 1:30 backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 undiscerning, perfidious, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful;

Rom 1:32 who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them.

But then, the question arises - what if one of them really sought after truth earnestly - what about him - would he also perish without knowing the truth even though he wanted to know more about God. To which my reply was -
Everybody does know God - some just suppress the truth and give it different names or attribute it to something else. God does reveal Himself to a person who truly and justly seeks and continues to seek after truth in faith.
Jer 29:13 And you shall seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.

Everybody does know God - some just suppress the truth and give it different names or attribute it to something else. God does reveal Himself to a person who truly and justly seeks and continues to seek after truth in faith.
Jer 29:13 And you shall seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.

Everybody does know God - some just suppress the truth and give it different names or attribute it to something else. God does reveal Himself to a person who truly and justly seeks and continues to seek after truth in faith.
Jer 5:1 Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in her open places, if you can find a man, if there is one who does justice, who seeks the truth; and I will pardon her.

Everybody does know God - some just suppress the truth and give it different names or attribute it to something else. God does reveal Himself to a person who truly and justly seeks and continues to seek after truth in faith.
Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."

So, you can see for yourself, that I wasn't making any personal comments - I was just paraphrasing Scripture. Any grievance against it, take it up to the Lord - I am just the messenger, don't shoot me.

And I was dealing within a very specific context- namely, "about someone who has never heard of God?"
So, very obviously, this should not have seemed to have included you because you've already heard about God.

I did try to seek God. I wanted to believe in him. He didn't show.

And yet, you've taken it personally when there seems no reason for you to have done so.

Unless of course, God was speaking to you through your conscience and you were fighting Him off and appeasing your guilt by letting loose your emotions against me.

And don't try on that holier-than-thou attitude by telling me that I didn't seek hard enough of truly want it. I did.

And if it's any consolation to you, I was as sinful as anybody else until Christ saved me and freed me from the power and guilt of sin.
Joh 8:32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
So I have no claims of self-righteousness - I lean on the merit of Christ's righteousness alone.

I hope this has settled this issue between us.... looking forward to discussing the other issues....

 

[kpd560]

God claims that he wants us to make a free choice.....

I don't see any Scriptural validity to a generalization of this statement in the sense that you mean. May I ask where you got this from?

I should have said that Christians tell me that God won't unequivocably reveal himself because He wants us to make a free (of coercion) choice. The reasoning as far as I can tell is that if the entire population of the world knew unequivocably that the Christian God exists then the existence of heaven and hell would also be proven. If heaven and hell are proven to exist then people will choose God out of fear and not love. I'm told that God wants people to choose him out of love and not fear. Which brings us back around to my original question, if God wants us to freely choose Him out of love why does he threaten us with eternal torture in hell if we don't? How is this different than run-of-the-mill blackmail?

God says no such thing as giving us 'free' choice in the sense that you mean. What God gives us is the ability to choose - this we call, freedom of will.

The person being blackmailed always has the "ability to choose", don't they?

Anyway, ability to choose is not the same as what you mean by 'free choice'.

Yes, you're right. I explained that I've been told by Christians that God wants us to make a "free choice" in the sense of no coercion. Were all those Christians wrong? Explain. Thanks.

 

[Mike]

Obviously, you’ve heard the names, but reject the validity of such writers as Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Tranquillas, Thallus, Pliny & Lucian.

I'm familiar with Josephus and Tacitus, and they do seem to suggest that there was a historical Jesus who was crucifed under Pilate. Although I recognise the other names, I've never heard them connected to the New Testament. Could you tell us more?

L Bob, I don’t believe I specifically connected these names to the New Testament. Some of their material is, but some points to fall out in early church persecution, persecution that resulted from responses from the resurrection. In my opinion, they add validity to the historicity of the New Testament.

Tranquillas: Little is known of the life and history of Roman historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas. He was the chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD) with access to imperial records. Suetonius makes two references to Christ and Christians:
“Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christus], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city.â€
This quote refers to an uproar in the Jewish community in Rome in 49 AD that caused Claudius to expel all Jews. This is what apparently had happened to Aquila and Priscilla in Acts 18:2:
“There he [Paul] met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome.â€
Suetonius’ second reference is to Nero’s persecution of Christians:
“After the great fire at Rome …Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.â€
In these two references Suetonius confirms that:
• In 49 AD Jews in Rome caused “disturbances†because of Christ. Likely there was already a Christian church in Rome at that time (only 16 years after the resurrection).
• Christians were persecuted by Nero in 64 AD (and that there must have been a large enough Christian population in Rome to have them be identified as such).

Thallus: A reference to events surrounding the crucifixion comes indirectly through the third century early church writer Julius Africanus who refers to a lost historical work from the first century Samaritan-born historian Thallus. Julius Africanus (160-240 AD) writes:
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun…Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth—manifestly that one of which we speak.â€
Apparently, in 52 AD Thallus tried to explain a mysterious darkness (the one mentioned in Matthew 27:45 during the crucifixion?) as an eclipse of the sun. Julius Africanus argues that in the middle of the lunar month (the 14th of Nisan, the Passover) a solar eclipse is not possible. Additionally he refers to a writing of Phlegon, also lost, that records this eclipse.
The indirect reference and its link to the crucifixion leave this quote subject to questions. Still, it is quite intriguing to find a supernatural event referred to by a non-Christian source.

Lucian: A second century Greek writer, Lucian of Samosata, wrote a rather sarcastic critique of Christianity:
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.â€
Lucian’s satire shows that:
• The Christians worship a crucified man, Christ.
• Christ introduced new teachings for which He was crucified.
• The Christians follow Christ’s laws and are willing to die for it.

 

[logical bob]

Thank you - that's all good stuff!

 

[kpd560]

Can you briefly outline the most important documentation from non-Christian historians that validates the authenticity of the New Testament? Not surprisingly, I was unaware of any but I'm always open to more evidence.

Obviously, you’ve heard the names, but reject the validity of such writers as Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Tranquillas, Thallus, Pliny & Lucian. It wouldn’t be “more†evidence for you. It would be that which you already dismiss.

Not at all. I've just today looked into Josephus who allegedly wrote this:

At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews and Gentiles. This was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of christians, so called from him, subsists to this time.

This analysis by Dr. Gordon Stein seems to summarize the argument against:

Why should we suspect that this passage is a forgery? First because, although the church fathers were quite fond of quoting passages which supported Christianity, and though these early church fathers were quite familiar with the works of Josephus, not one of them quotes this passage in defense of Christianity until Eusebius does in the fourth century. We also know Eusebius to be the man who said that lying for the advancement of the church was quite acceptable. He was probably the one who inserted this suspect passage into Josephus' works. Origen, the famous early Christian apologist, even quotes from other parts of Josephus, but somehow neglects to quote our passage. Origen wrote his book Contra Celsus in about 220 A.D.

Secondly, the passage comes in the middle of a collection of stories about calamities- which have befallen the Jews. This would not be a calamity. Thirdly, the passage has Josephus, an Orthodox Jew, saying that Jesus was the Christ. That is a highly unlikely statement for him to have made. The whole passage reads as if it had been written by a Christian. Josephus is made to call the Christian religion "the truth." He would hardly have said that. Although Josephus reports the miracles of a number of other "prophets," he is silent about the miracles attributed to Jesus. Again, this makes no sense when compared to Josephus' known genuine writings. The last phrase in the quotation, ". .. subsists to this time," referring to the Christians, would not make any sense unless it were written quite some time after Jesus had died. Josephus, on the other hand, wrote the Antiquities in about 90 A.D.

To summarize, first, this passage is never mentioned by any church father in defense of Christianity until Eusebius in the 4th century. Eusebius was well known for his view that lying to advance the church was quite acceptable. The implication is that Eusebius added the text.

Second, the text is out of place and Josephus, an orthodox Jew, is unlikely to refer to Jesus as "the Christ" and Christianity as "the truth". There are a few additional lesser reasons to infer it's a forgery.

In your favor, it appears today that there is some consensus that there is a kernel of truth in the passage and that Eusebius simply embellished but all in all a very poor testament to the whole cloth truth of the Bible.

I'm researching Tacitus and Lucien now. Thanks again. Best.

 

[ChattyMute]

At the posts directed towards me, I've been really busy and probably won't have the time to answer until later this weekend. Sorry for the wait.

@ ivdavid
I don't know where you're getting that I'm emotional or impatient with you. I'm not. I'm sorry if that is how you perceive my style of writing, but I don't get emotional because of online conversations.

 

[ChattyMute]

I'm concerned here about the rise of personal emotions in a discussion that is meant to be impersonal. So, I'm going to take this post and a few more to clarify my intent -

What about someone who has never heard of God?

Everybody does know God ....

I see where you got your answer, but I completely disagree. Neither of us is going to change our minds.
Also, I haven't really shown any emotions. I'm sorry that is how you perceive my writing style.

[quote:3dv0yymo]I did try to seek God. I wanted to believe in him. He didn't show.

And yet, you've taken it personally when there seems no reason for you to have done so.

Unless of course, God was speaking to you through your conscience and you were fighting Him off and appeasing your guilt by letting loose your emotions against me. [/quote:3dv0yymo]
I haven't let loose any emotions on you, and I haven't taken anything you said personally. When I realized I didn't believe in God, there was nothing that was taken personally. It was relief to finally know what I believed. And I don't have anything personal against God because I can't have something personal against something I don't believe exists.

[quote:3dv0yymo]And don't try on that holier-than-thou attitude by telling me that I didn't seek hard enough of truly want it. I did.

And if it's any consolation to you, I was as sinful as anybody else until Christ saved me and freed me from the power and guilt of sin.
Joh 8:32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
So I have no claims of self-righteousness - I lean on the merit of Christ's righteousness alone.

I hope this has settled this issue between us.... looking forward to discussing the other issues....[/quote:3dv0yymo][/quote]
I didn't have an issue with you, and I still don't. That comment was just a precaution because almost every Christian I have talked to online has gone that route.

 

[ivdavid]

I'd like to use this post to clarify some stuff -

it doesn't follow that because we rebel at times we need a savior.

After I read this statement, it struck me that we are perhaps not yet on the same page. When I refer to 'self-pride' or 'rebellion' or 'self-control' or 'evil', I always mean it in a theological perspective - that is, with respect to God. All our sins are committed against God first, in our very hearts. Their manifestations and consequences may/may not be in our world. For eg. a child rebelling against its parents is rebellion according to human perspective. On the other hand, a man doing a lot of good in the society but crediting himself for it, may not account as rebellion in the human perspective but is rebellion from God's perspective - rebellion against God's presence, not any visible human form. Similarly, charitable acts may seem selfless in human perspective, but when done without heartfelt acknowledgment of God's grace, then it amounts to self-pride. So, such very 'good' acts in human perspective are actually still evil in God's perspective because the heart condition hasn't changed towards God. This involves the doctrine of total depravity that I intend to cover in a later post and that I would like you to read elsewhere on the net where it has been dealt with adequately.

So, an unregenerate man is always continually filled with self-pride and is always rebelling against God's authority. The manifestations or consequences of this rebellion may/may not be seen but it still is there within the heart.


Now, that's a clarification with the vocabulary. I'd like to take it further with my usage of the word 'you'. When I keep referring to 'you', I'm not meaning it personally as if I were talking about the person I'm addressing, I'm merely using the word 'you' as a generalization.
There have been some personal examples given which I don't treat personally. I treat them as conceptual logical statements and respond to that - it again has nothing to do with whom I'm addressing.
For eg:, consider this discussion segment -

Do you ask out of curiosity or do you demand as if you had a right to know? If it's out of curiosity, then your heart has anyway decided to obey with/without an explanation.

My parent's don't have to tell me, and I don't have a right to know.
Curiosity, and no that doesn't mean I would do what they said without the explanation.

I have no intention to comment on ChattyMute's personal views - I intend to use the word 'you' only for ease of language while generalizing. I'm merely trying to evaluate the reasoning behind various beliefs and share how Christianity would perceive it.
So, I'd reason out with the statements as such and not the person behind the statements - deal with the ideas and truth of the statements themselves but never the person making them.

So, if I'm to look at these 2 statements -
1. My parent's don't have to tell me, and I don't have a right to know.
2. Curiosity, and no that doesn't mean I would do what they said without the explanation.

I seem to stumble at a seeming contradiction - note again, I'm only dealing with the statements and not the person. In statement 1, if the speaker has agreed that the speaker's parents need not give the speaker - (this gets quite cumbersome which is why I prefer to use a generalized 'you', so again) -

In statement 1, if you have agreed that your parents needn't give you any reason and that you don't have any right to know, then why would you in statement 2, contradict this by saying that you won't obey without an explanation which essentially means that you're demanding a reason - the very reason that you relinquished in statement 1.

To take this forward, if you were in the garden of eden and God commanded you not to eat the fruit of that apple tree and warned you that you would die surely if you did so - note, He hasn't given you any reason yet. Would you obey Him or would you disobey until the reason is given logically? Would disobedience even be an option before a perfect God? What would the reason be to demand an explanation from God? Is it to second guess the All-Wise God's wisdom? Is it to test the All-Good God's intentions?
Just some food for thought - you don't have to reply...

 

[ivdavid]

I'd like to continue from the previous post...

And I already told you that to do something just because any authority figure tells you t do it is illogical.

Quite true - but you are still to respond to my previous argument against the relativity of slavery. If slavery being wrong is absolute - then you are appealing to some form of authority there.

And secondly, when the authority is perfect as God, disobeying Him would be illogical. Even if not for the authority of God Almighty, His perfect nature yields itself to be trusted logically. We do trust ourselves to a calculator's precision - here is God who is infinitely more complex and more precise in everything. Why should it be illogical to trust Him and obey Him?

If someone tells me to do something that I think is illogical, then I won't do it. That doesn't necessarily make me a rebel or need a savior.

To go back to my clarification of vocabulary - 'rebel' here means a rebel against God. If you begin to disobey God because you think He's being illogical, then you're essentially rebelling against His perfect will. And any rebel against the All-Good God has to be necessarily evil (total depravity) and hence is deserving of just condemnation - from which one can be saved only by a Saviour.

People like being in charge. What's wrong with that?

Say, you like to be in charge of a group of people and you feel there's nothing wrong with it. Now what happens if some others don't like you to be in charge of them? Would you still want to be in charge, against these people's wishes - thereby resulting in discord and unrest? Or would you stop liking to be in charge out of your love for these people's wishes? If you want to reason it out, again you'll have to appeal to absolute standards which can be found in God alone. So the options seem to be -
1) You are in charge by force - which is wrong.
2) You stop wanting to be in charge - which is what God commands.
3) You appeal to God's will to lead these people in love- in which case, it's your wanting to love them rather than rule them that drives you.
I don't possibly see how wanting to be in charge can actually end up being right - if you can reason it out, I am willing to listen.

How am I supposed to trust a figure that has no evidence?

The evidence of the Figure is not in empirical terms but not all evidence needs to be empirically derived. The evidence lies in the historical accounts by many people. It lies in creation that points to a Creator. Our inner sense of morality and conscience that warns and guides us are also evident of a Moral Law Giver. Finally, the Bible itself gives witness to the person of Christ. If these evidences are being suppressed by vain imaginations, that still doesn't change the nature of these evidences.

Who's supposed book is over 2000 years old written by people we don't even know?

The age of the book nor the authors should matter in your analysis of its doctrines. By that standard, Socratic philosophy should never have been studied.

There is no reason to give my complete trust to that book.

Well, if in your analysis of all its doctrines, you see no falsehood rationally or experientially, then that should be reason enough for you to trust its truths.

I don't think a God could be wrong because I don't believe he exists.

I respect your belief. But if you intend to discuss Christianity further, I request you to adopt the Christianity framework and believe that He does exist - for the sake of discussion.

Yeah, there could be a God; I doubt it is yours if there is one.

Is this a personal remark or are you shifting your stance from atheism to agnosticism? If it's a personal remark, I'll let it pass. If not, then I'd like to discuss this further....

 

[ivdavid]

kpd560... and others following this discussion,

I want to shift focus again to part of another discussion on this very same thread about absolutism and relativism. Universal eternal truths are absolute, personal preferences are relative. That's the way they should be. The problem arises when the eternal truths are made relative and when personal preferences are made absolute. But who then defines what is to be absolute and what is to be relative in the first place. The absolutist's answer is God, the relativistic answer is nobody/everybody. In a relativistic framework which removes God, for a man to start defining absolutes, he has to begin from absolutes which is what he has trouble arriving at in the first place - Hence the relativistic conclusion is that there are no absolutes and even if there were, we cannot arrive at them.

With the above relativistic conclusion, all concepts of good and evil go out the window. So, your first question should be whether you are an absolutist or a relativist - if you're a relativist, then you shouldn't have any trouble with accepting 'evil', because no such thing as evil exists in a relativistic framework. If you're an absolutist, then you will have to agree that there is no debate or 'free' choice of choosing between good or evil - you've always got to choose good; if you don't and choose evil, then you will suffer judgment and condemnation.

With the above in mind, let's proceed to your question regarding the Judeo-Christian God. With God, all eternal truths of good and evil are absolutes. God Himself is the very definition of Good and anything against Him is evil. Is there any absolutist who would come up and say that loving good is not an absolute necessity? This would imply that loving evil is permissible - and this can't be. Therefore, loving God is as much to be an obvious choice as one loving good and not evil. When one fails to do that, he is warned to begin loving God because that is the right thing to do - why would anyone choose evil in place of good?

The person being blackmailed always has the "ability to choose", don't they?

So, as I said earlier (I implore you to read what I've already written in that previous post), to love God is not a blackmail as much as to love good would be blackmail. You simply aren't allowed to love evil - and if God did allow that, then He wouldn't be God. You are indeed commanded to love God with all your heart,soul,mind and strength because it is the right thing to do, else you'd be committing evil.

I think the mistake you commit is in your assumption that God wants you to choose Him out of love as you would choose between ice creams. You imagine yourself to be in this situation - that you are given the freedom to choose between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, and you don't like vanilla. But then you are told that if you take chocolate, then you'd be jailed. It seems an invasion of your 'free' choice and you feel that to be unfair.

You most certainly are right when you're dealing with ice creams which are a matter of personal preference and hence are relative. But when you're commanded to love God, it's not a matter of relative personal preference but that of absolute eternal good. So, by not doing so, you are being evil and therefore are deserving of the consequences.

Your next question might be about why, not loving God may be evil. Well, God is All-Good and there is no good apart from Him - so if you don't love God, then you have no other good to love anywhere else, and hence you'd only be left loving evil which is what you're commanded against.

I'm told that God wants people to choose him out of love and not fear.

Very true. If that's what your Christian friends told you, then they're not wrong. They're absolutely right.
When you seek God, you are to do so out of love and not fear - not survival fear but reverential fear. But the inference that God gives you the 'free' choice of whether you want to love him or not, is not biblical. You are commanded to love God just as you are commanded to love good. It's the same.

So if i've understood you correctly,I think the fundamental issue is that you don't want to love God.

And if I've understood your dilemma correctly, you've got God on one side and hell on the other side. You don't want to love God and you don't want to go to hell. And you seem to lack any other choice that favors you. And you probably begin to hate God even more for putting you in such a situation - He doesn't seem to be all that loving now. Further, God rules out any fake love but asks you to love Him earnestly out of willingness - And you just don't feel that way. And you can't imagine how one can be forced to love somebody because love is in essence expressed by a willing free heart.

This isn't a contradiction. This is just part of the process of salvation.
This is to show the true state of all humans - to show that we are all sinners in that we are unable to love good at all - good being defined in God alone. This only confirms what the Scriptures say - that all of us are haters of God and are His enemies for no cause. That's how much we love evil and are morally bankrupt in His sight - this is the doctrine of total depravity. We truly do need a Saviour to redeem us from this inescapable state of our hearts - its self-pride, depravity and rebellion against God.

I would like to reference this from under total depravity on wikipedia -
" The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and to reject the rule of God. "

So from the above statement, we find that the doctrine of Total depravity observes the following -
1. Man is by nature not inclined to love God - thereby betraying his lack of love for good.
2. Man serves his own will always independent of God's will - thereby betraying his self-pride.
3. Man rejects the rule of God - thereby betraying his rebellion against God Almighty.

To continue from wikipedia,
" Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise. All good, consequently, is derived from God alone, and in no way through man. "

So, God gives us the Laws and commandments to show how perfect His standard is and to point out man's inadequacy at keeping them because of our total depravity - God's Laws are meant only to show us how sinful our natures really are.

God Himself knows that we're unable to love Him by ourselves - He wants us to know that. When we realize how sinful we are and how we are morally bankrupt to be so unable and unwilling to love what is good, that's when we realize our need for a Saviour to save us from our own sinful natures. God provides us hope in Jesus Christ who has come to save us from the guilt and power of our sins. God calls us to repent our sins and dead works - He promises to save all those who throw themselves at His mercies and grace and call out to the Lord to save. Here, these repentant believers are given a new heart and their spirit is renewed - this is regeneration - and we are enabled to love God with all our heart now.

Given a new heart to love again and given the experience of God's grace and mercy, we are forever indebted to God in humility which enables us to fully enjoy an eternal relationship with Him where we find divine peace, love and joy in God.

I think you might like reading the book of Romans in the Bible for systematic theology.
Hope I've helped clarify some ambiguity here....

 

[watchman F]

I have a few question for atheist.

#1 How do you rationally explain the universe?

#2 How do you explain the Earth, the ocean, The trees, animals ect....? (This couldn't be a random accident. That belief takes more faith than believing in a creator)

#3 How do you explain human. We breath, live, think, process communicate? There is more data in one of our genomes than in this computer I am using.

 

[logical bob]

I have a few question for atheist.

Hi there.

#1 How do you rationally explain the universe?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. You could mean how do we explain the way things work, or how the universe came to be the way it is. These are scientific questions and although science is always work in progress it has a lot to say on them both.

Or you could be asking what causes there to be a universe at all. In that case, I've just posted some thoughts on that here.

#2 How do you explain the Earth, the ocean, The trees, animals ect....? (This couldn't be a random accident. That belief takes more faith than believing in a creator)

#3 How do you explain human. We breath, live, think, process communicate? There is more data in one of our genomes than in this computer I am using.

I recommend you learn something about the theory of evolution. It doesn't claim that this is all a random accident. I don't expect it would persuade you, but you do yourself no credit criticising a caricature of a viewpoint you clearly don't understand. It's always good to understand the opposing view as well as possible.