Christianity Changes View

[yoamocuy]

Back the viewpoint of christianity. Regardless if you stand it up to the scientific method. Christianity would be shot down, it is only natural. I can't accept christian doctrine because it relys on faith.

Even atheism relies on faith. John Leslie, who is an agnostic, used a great analogy to describe the creation of the world in his book Universes, which is a book on anthropic principles. He said, imagine you are about to be executed, you stand in front of the firing range, hear the guns go off, and realize that you are still standing. Now you probably wouldn't just walk away and simply think, wow that was close. You'd probably wonder what happened. There would really be two possible options. You might think, well there's no way x amount of marksmen would miss so they must have been in on it. You also might think, well statistically it is completely logical for one marksman to have a bad day and miss. If there are numerous other executions going on today then in it would be plausible for all the marksmen in at least one of those executions to have a bad day and that must be what happened. It is the same way with our world, either there was a God of some sort who was "in on it" regarding the creation of the world, or there are numerous other universes all with varying laws of nature, laws of forces, etc... and one just happened to get everything right for carbon based life to be a possibility. John Leslie goes on to say how he isn't sure which is the case, he's split 50/50. To make either decision requires faith. I personally find it easier to believe in a God than potentially trillions of other universes; however that belief does not suggest Christianity, it simply suggests a creator of some sort. There are other reasons why I believe Christianity over other religions.

 

[Atothetheist]

So why are you here - looking for light entertainment?

not entertainment. There are better ways to have fun. I genuinely seek to know the truth.

to the first point. Faith can't coincide with the scientific method.

the second post. NO. it is the dogma of hell. the christian world view condemns me, homosexuals, and others to eternal punishment.

 

[Atothetheist]

Even atheism relies on faith. John Leslie, who is an agnostic, used a great analogy to describe the creation of the world in his book Universes, which is a book on anthropic principles. He said, imagine you are about to be executed, you stand in front of the firing range, hear the guns go off, and realize that you are still standing. Now you probably wouldn't just walk away and simply think, wow that was close. You'd probably wonder what happened. There would really be two possible options. You might think, well there's no way x amount of marksmen would miss so they must have been in on it. You also might think, well statistically it is completely logical for one marksman to have a bad day and miss. If there are numerous other executions going on today then in it would be plausible for all the marksmen in at least one of those executions to have a bad day and that must be what happened. It is the same way with our world, either there was a God of some sort who was "in on it" regarding the creation of the world, or there are numerous other universes all with varying laws of nature, laws of forces, etc... and one just happened to get everything right for carbon based life to be a possibility. John Leslie goes on to say how he isn't sure which is the case, he's split 50/50. To make either decision requires faith. I personally find it easier to believe in a God than potentially trillions of other universes; however that belief does not suggest Christianity, it simply suggests a creator of some sort. There are other reasons why I believe Christianity over other religions.

First of all, you are wrong atheism is not faith because it DOES NOT assert there is no god. it says they don't think there is. You just said an argument of in creduality. The truth is the truth no matter how hard it is to believe in it.

you also did an aregument from ignorance. Just because humans don't know how the universe was made, doesn't mean God did it. atheism is simply the statement that he withold belief of God till evidence, and credible ones, show up.

We do not assert that we know there is no God, we have no right to.

 

[yoamocuy]

First of all, you are wrong atheism is not faith because it DOES NOT assert there is no god. it says they don't think there is. You just said an argument of in creduality. The truth is the truth no matter how hard it is to believe in it.

If one does not assert one way or the other regarding a belief in God then can he truly be considered a Christian or Atheist? Wouldn't he simply be an agnostic. One could be an agnostic and lean one way or the other. Although it is somewhat pointless to argue semantics. I agree that truth is truth no matter how hard it is to believe. It would be arrogant for anyone to claim that he has all of the truth. The moment one says he has discovered all there is to know about truth is the moment one stops growing.

you also did an aregument from ignorance. Just because humans don't know how the universe was made, doesn't mean God did it. atheism is simply the statement that he withold belief of God till evidence, and credible ones, show up.

We do not assert that we know there is no God, we have no right to.

You seem to have misunderstood my statement. I never stated that just because humans don't know how the universe was made that God did it. It is obvious that the existence of a God is not the only corollary of a universe with carbon-based life. I stated that I find it easier to believe God did it rather than it happened by chance. In your case you seem to find it easier to believe that it happened by chance rather than by a God. I simply withold disbelief in God until credible evidence shows up.

 

[Atothetheist]

If one does not assert one way or the other regarding a belief in God then can he truly be considered a Christian or Atheist? Wouldn't he simply be an agnostic. One could be an agnostic and lean one way or the other. Although it is somewhat pointless to argue semantics. I agree that truth is truth no matter how hard it is to believe. It would be arrogant for anyone to claim that he has all of the truth. The moment one says he has discovered all there is to know about truth is the moment one stops growing.



You seem to have misunderstood my statement. I never stated that just because humans don't know how the universe was made that God did it. It is obvious that the existence of a God is not the only corollary of a universe with carbon-based life. I stated that I find it easier to believe God did it rather than it happened by chance. In your case you seem to find it easier to believe that it happened by chance rather than by a God. I simply withold disbelief in God until credible evidence shows up.

Look up atheist in the dictionary. You clearly do not know what an atheist is. Agnosticism is the statement that he can't disbelive in a god, but can't believe it. Yes one can be an agnostic atheist, I am one.

You can't disprove God, just like you can't disprove unicorns. You position is skewed. Again, you made an argument from ignorance, and increduality. The natural position is doubt. I can say I have a rollercoaster, and you would doubt me. It is my responsiblility to prove to you that I have one. You can't possibly prove that I don't have a rollaecoaster. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

I do not belive it simpler to belive that it happened by chance then by God. I just believe that it didn't.

 

[Grazer]

Bart Ehrman ( Bibical historian.) agrees on this position. by giving me only one quote, and then making the assertion that MOST of the historians don't agree is a logical fallacy.

I accept that stating one historian doesn't show that all historians hold the view.

I think I need to revise what I have put based on new information. Re-reading the likes of John Dickson, Gary Habermas, N.T Wright; all quote other scholars and their own studies and all seem to accept there are indeed differences within the texts but qualify it with saying the vast majority of changes are minor rather than substantive and doesn't affect the information that can take from them. Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix have concluded:

The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5 percent pure - taken from The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel (emphasis is in the book)

The below is an interview with Professor Craig Blomberg (one of the 15 translators responsible for the NIV translation of the Bible) The first video goes briefly into Bart Ehrman's claims:

https://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible

To quote from that first video:

Less than 1% of the New Testament is textually suspect in terms of differences that actually affect content and even then, seldom more than a single verse or 2 and no doctrine, no teaching, no belief central to Christianity ever hangs on any of those disputed texts

So I accept that there are differences in the manuscripts we have but none of the historians, scholars and professors I have read have concluded that these changes are numerous or affects the accuracy of the texts.

 

[Ambrose]

Back the viewpoint of christianity. Regardless if you stand it up to the scientific method. Christianity would be shot down, it is only natural. I can't accept christian doctrine because it relys on faith.

Your not giving it a chance. If you follow this train of thought your entire life you will be disappointed in the results at one point or the other. The scientific method is not good for solving every problem. (Though it is GREAT for solving many problems.) But if you continue this at one point or the other you will be disappointed.

 

[Atothetheist]

It does indeed seem like christianity changes your view to a more faithbased worldview. Personally I see this as a danger to humanity.

 

[Atothetheist]

Your not giving it a chance. If you follow this train of thought your entire life you will be disappointed in the results at one point or the other. The scientific method is not good for solving every problem. (Though it is GREAT for solving many problems.) But if you continue this at one point or the other you will be disappointed.

Stop asserting. You clearly know nothing about the worldview if you are a christian now. You just seem to say, you can't base it on evidence. You'll be disapointed. Show me that I need faith... Show me why I shouldn't use the scientific method. You are making assertions without evidence to back them up.

 

[Atothetheist]

I accept that stating one historian doesn't show that all historians hold the view.

I think I need to revise what I have put based on new information. Re-reading the likes of John Dickson, Gary Habermas, N.T Wright; all quote other scholars and their own studies and all seem to accept there are indeed differences within the texts but qualify it with saying the vast majority of changes are minor rather than substantive and doesn't affect the information that can take from them. Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix have concluded:

The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5 percent pure - taken from The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel (emphasis is in the book)

The below is an interview with Professor Craig Blomberg (one of the 15 translators responsible for the NIV translation of the Bible) The first video goes briefly into Bart Ehrman's claims:

https://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible

To quote from that first video:

Less than 1% of the New Testament is textually suspect in terms of differences that actually affect content and even then, seldom more than a single verse or 2 and no doctrine, no teaching, no belief central to Christianity ever hangs on any of those disputed texts

So I accept that there are differences in the manuscripts we have but none of the historians, scholars and professors I have read have concluded that these changes are numerous or affects the accuracy of the texts.

Lee storbel or strobal is not a biblical historian. He has majored in Common Law. What the hell does he know? Did you look at the link I gave you? Did you see the manuscripts, or at least read some of the historical works? Listen. WE HAVE NO ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE. They are the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the manuscripts. :eeeekkk

Two historians in a book as logically fallacious as A case for Christ is not a good and impartial source.

 

[yoamocuy]

Look up atheist in the dictionary. You clearly do not know what an atheist is. Agnosticism is the statement that he can't disbelive in a god, but can't believe it. Yes one can be an agnostic atheist, I am one.

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Deny: to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true

Assert: to state with assurance, confidence, or force

So according to your definition of Atheism, an Atheist is one who states there is no supreme being but not with confidence. Fair enough.

You can't disprove God, just like you can't disprove unicorns. You position is skewed. Again, you made an argument from ignorance, and increduality. The natural position is doubt. I can say I have a rollercoaster, and you would doubt me. It is my responsiblility to prove to you that I have one. You can't possibly prove that I don't have a rollaecoaster. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

I do not belive it simpler to belive that it happened by chance then by God. I just believe that it didn't.

I was basing my argument on the belief that the universe formed at some point, whether by chance or by God. If you do not believe there was any point of creation but rather the universe has always existed then that opens up an entirely different argument. Am I correct in perceiving that you do not believe there was a point of creation for the universe or do you not have any belief regarding that?

 

[Atothetheist]

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Deny: to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true

Assert: to state with assurance, confidence, or force

So according to your definition of Atheism, an Atheist is one who states there is no supreme being but not with confidence. Fair enough.



I was basing my argument on the belief that the universe formed at some point, whether by chance or by God. If you do not believe there was any point of creation but rather the universe has always existed then that opens up an entirely different argument. Am I correct in perceiving that you do not believe there was a point of creation for the universe or do you not have any belief regarding that?

There was a beginning of the universe. Science has determined it to be around 13.7 BILLION years AGO. Just because the universe has a beginning does not mean God created it.

 

[yoamocuy]

There was a beginning of the universe. Science has determined it to be around 13.7 BILLION years AGO. Just because the universe has a beginning does not mean God created it.

I'm not exactly sure why you put BILLION and AGO in caps? I'm assuming you are trying to emphasize it but am not exactly sure why since it does not seem to have any relevance in our dialogue.

I do not belive it simpler to belive that it happened by chance then by God. I just believe that it didn't..

You are going to have to clarify your statement here then. What do you mean by I just believe that it didn't? What is it referring to?

 

[Atothetheist]

I accept that stating one historian doesn't show that all historians hold the view.

I think I need to revise what I have put based on new information. Re-reading the likes of John Dickson, Gary Habermas, N.T Wright; all quote other scholars and their own studies and all seem to accept there are indeed differences within the texts but qualify it with saying the vast majority of changes are minor rather than substantive and doesn't affect the information that can take from them. Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix have concluded:

The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5 percent pure - taken from The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel (emphasis is in the book)

The below is an interview with Professor Craig Blomberg (one of the 15 translators responsible for the NIV translation of the Bible) The first video goes briefly into Bart Ehrman's claims:

https://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible

To quote from that first video:

Less than 1% of the New Testament is textually suspect in terms of differences that actually affect content and even then, seldom more than a single verse or 2 and no doctrine, no teaching, no belief central to Christianity ever hangs on any of those disputed texts

So I accept that there are differences in the manuscripts we have but none of the historians, scholars and professors I have read have concluded that these changes are numerous or affects the accuracy of the texts.

By the way, I watched the video. This guy seems to believe that because people believed in it, it must have been true.

How could people believe something that wasn't established until Paul started preaching. Jesus never once claimed Divnity. He was a Jew. He taught a new Judaism that still was Jewish. He kept ALL of the Jewish laws, not only the ten commandments, and intructed his diciples to do that same. Laws such as marry your rapist, and other horrid ones.

 

[Ambrose]

Stop asserting. You clearly know nothing about the worldview if you are a christian now. You just seem to say, you can't base it on evidence. You'll be disapointed. Show me that I need faith... Show me why I shouldn't use the scientific method. You are making assertions without evidence to back them up.

If you refuse to give it a chance and refuse to believe that I have any idea what I am talking about and you will simply blow off my post and insult them than very well. If you view faith as a danger to the population then hopefully you will see that without any faith in the world at all the world will crash and burn. You will just have to crash and be disappointed for yourself. If you refuse to aknowledge me then you can fail. But you cannot say that I did not warn you. By the way, Continueous attacks and insults on Christianity will not be tolerated and if you continue to do so you will eventually end up banned. There are other places for that. This is a Christian sanctuary. Well never mind i wont even repeat myself. Just refer you to the first thing I said in the way of that back on the welcome thread. If you want to trash Christianity go somewhere else. Such attacks will not be tolerated. You either want to learn this or you don't. If you refuse to give any credibility to what we say then you are here for no reason and will end up being banned in the end anyway. I predict you will respond with a negative comment on how we are judgemental, Wont listen to anyone elses opinion, uneducated and are stupid for doing such things.

 

[Atothetheist]

I'm not exactly sure why you put BILLION and AGO in caps? I'm assuming you are trying to emphasize it but am not exactly sure why since it does not seem to have any relevance in our dialogue.

You are going to have to clarify your statement here then. What do you mean by I just believe that it didn't? What is it referring to?

I put it in caps for all of the YEC's.

It must have cut off . What I meant to say was " ...It didn't need to be created by God."

 

[Ambrose]

By the way, I watched the video. This guy seems to believe that because people believed in it, it must have been true.

How could people believe something that wasn't established until Paul started preaching. Jesus never once claimed Divnity. He was a Jew. He taught a new Judaism that still was Jewish. He kept ALL of the Jewish laws, not only the ten commandments, and intructed his diciples to do that same. Laws such as marry your rapist, and other horrid ones.

Before putting negative Labels on Jesus' teachings and Negative Labels on Christian beliefs open your bible and read it. That very comment shows me how unqualified you really are to talk about Christian beliefs. You clearly don't know much of anything about them.

 

[Atothetheist]

If you refuse to give it a chance and refuse to believe that I have any idea what I am talking about and you will simply blow off my post and insult them than very well. If you view faith as a danger to the population then hopefully you will see that without any faith in the world at all the world will crash and burn. You will just have to crash and be disappointed for yourself. If you refuse to aknowledge me then you can fail. But you cannot say that I did not warn you. By the way, Continueous attacks and insults on Christianity will not be tolerated and if you continue to do so you will eventually end up banned. There are other places for that. This is a Christian sanctuary. Well never mind i wont even repeat myself. Just refer you to the first thing I said in the way of that back on the welcome thread. If you want to trash Christianity go somewhere else. Such attacks will not be tolerated. You either want to learn this or you don't. If you refuse to give any credibility to what we say then you are here for no reason and will end up being banned in the end anyway. I predict you will respond with a negative comment on how we are judgemental, Wont listen to anyone elses opinion, uneducated and are stupid for doing such things.

You abandoned this worldview for what you thought was a better one. I can understand why you say I will be dissapointed. I am just asking you to back up what you say, and you arn't doing it. Instead you are asserting more, and more without evidence.

I asked you to give me examples, and reasons why my worldview will ultimatly disappoint me.

 

[Ambrose]

I put it in caps for all of the YEC's.

It must have cut off . What I meant to say was " ...It didn't need to be created by God."

Keep in mind this isn't a science forums website, Continueous calculated attacks on ANY group whether YEC or OEC or just OE will NOT BE TOLERATED. THIS IS THE LAST WARNING BEFORE YOU GET AN INFRACTION.

 

[Atothetheist]

Before putting negative Labels on Jesus' teachings and Negative Labels on Christian beliefs open your bible and read it. That very comment shows me how unqualified you really are to talk about Christian beliefs. You clearly don't know much of anything about them.

I have two bibles, which translation would you want me to read it from? This is an honest question.

I have NIV or NASB.