pajarito

Here it is. However, I don’t think I was the one who posted it in the discussion you mentioned. Pascal's Wager The argument that believing in God is the most logical thing to do since if there is a God and you deny him, then you are in trouble. If there is no god and you accept him, there is no problem because it doesn't matter. Logically, it is better to not deny that God exists than to deny he does. There is truth to this argument, but the problem is that it does not define which "god" to believe in since in many religions, believing in a different god brings a punishing judgment. Nevertheless, this does not excuse a person from at least trying to discover if there is a God or not and who He might be. Theological Dictionary, P – R I don’t buy into this one entirely because it’s too simple. Worshiping the wrong god is as futile as not worshiping a god at all. Although, it’s a start.

You probably believe John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence. Why, because there were others who signed and authenticated it such as John Adams and Samuel Adams. These were reliable witnesses to the fact. No one alive today was witness to the fact that they all personally signed this document. However, I believe that they did based on the corroborating evidence. I guess there's a little bit of faith in all of that but it is certainly not "blind faith." “It is because it is said to be” isn’t a very convincing argument. “It is because multiple reliable people all willing to die because of what each of them saw together” is a little more convincing and worthy of investigation.

I don’t know how else to explain it. Reliable records presenting multiple eye-witnesses corroborating each other’s stories all willing to die horrible deaths because they would not deny what they saw or refuse to preach to the world the implications of it. The stories of the Priestess of Delphi nor all the people in an auditorium watching a televangelist don’t have that. No I don’t believe all the ministers you mentioned were imbued with divine power. I don’t deny that miracles occur, however. The sincerity of such a person must be determined by examining the totality of his/her works (whether they are “of God” or “of self). There are many people out there who use religion for selfish gain. Unfortunately, many people see this hypocrisy and are turned away even though, in reality, that doesn’t represent the true nature of the religion.

Non-biblical Accounts of the Resurrection Regarding the Quotes from the Historian Josephus about Jesus The Trial of Jesus: An Account Josephus, a Jewish historian writes in the 80’s or early 90’s: Tacitus, a late 1st century Roman historian writes: I don’t think you’re reading all I’m posting. There’s a lot more to it than just dying for a belief. If that was all there was to it, you’d have a good point. I made that point in an earlier post.

How are you so sure they were wrong? I don’t think you’re putting the circumstances all together. A follower of a cult leader might be brainwashed into fully believing that he/she should drink the red cool-aid and catch a ride on a comet to meet up with space aliens. A Muslim terrorist may fully believe that God wants him to blow himself up on a bus also killing everyone else on it. But they didn’t actually see for themselves proof validating their cause. If they did, they were probably insane and delusional. Too many people saw the same thing happen in the case of the resurrection. There’s also no evidence to show that they were insane and no reason to believe, based on their own willingness to die horrible deaths, they were liars trying to mislead the people and create some religion for their own personal agendas. No other religion can claim the number of validating sources that Christianity can. It’s one thing when one person was involved in witnessing an event. He might be lying. He may be insane. He may be telling the truth. It still isn’t very credible with only one source. When many trusted and knowledgeable people can validate what others are saying about an event, one is compelled to pay closer attention to what they are saying. We believe events happened in history based on the eyewitness testimony of others all the time. There is no reason why the evidence proposed in the Gospels of the New Testament should be treated any differently just because it hits a nerve with so many people. It reveals information that many people simply choose not to hear. That’s because it convicts us of our wrongs. We don’t want to hear that. We want to live our lives any way we want. It’s called pride and selfishness.

I’m not talking about our physical existence here. I’m talking about what’s after that. Our measly 60 – 100 years physically on Earth is nothing in the big scheme of things. If he was sincere in his belief, then he is alive spiritually. His life had purpose and still does. We get focused on our physical selves because that’s the only concept of life that we have. We’re like babies in a crib. The only thing we know is the cage around us and that big spinning mobile above our heads. It has been demonstrated in the past that there is more to come. We haven’t even touched the surface. You’re going to die someday. You cannot control that. Do you believe in death? There are lots of things we cannot control or even can understand but are still very real.

The guy's who drank the kool-aid also knew they were 100% right. Strength of conviction isn't always a good indicator of truth. You might have a point if that was all there was to it. The Islamic terrorists also believe that they are dying for the truth. The difference is the eye-witness martyrs of the New Testament saw what they saw, were threatened with their lives if they continued to proclaim it, and were true to what they spoke even as some of them were tortured and crucified upside down until death. I cannot reasonably believe that any human being could endure that (especially all but one of them) just to perpetuate a false religion for their own purposes. They saw something extraordinary and believed that their eternal lives depended on following that example even as they were tortured to death.

Being “Catholic” and “believing in a church” isn’t really what’s important. If your husband sincerely believed in Jesus, then his life was saved. It hurts and we are angered because our loved ones are no longer physically with us, however, there is a purpose in everything. I am sorry for your loss. I can’t imagine something like that happening to me. We are all one step away from death at any moment. Taking my life into “my own hands” or relying on “my own power” will not change that. Thankfully, there is an alternative. Sayings not found in Scripture

Because of how he came, who he said he was, what he said would happen, and consequently what took place. Defeating death is a convincing argument. Why not? In order to be fair, you’ve got to judge the Bible in the same manner as any other ancient work. The mistakes that have crept into the text over the years do absolutely nothing to discredit the core teachings of who Jesus said he was and what he did. There is no logical evidence to show discredit among the authors who claimed to be eye-witnesses to what happened and demonstrated their belief by becoming martyrs. I don’t know anyone who would die in the manner they did if they knew what they were dying for wasn’t 100% true. It’s compelling and worth detailed examination. Especially considering its implications on you, me, and everyone else. Your statement above is a very handy and overused phrase amongst nonbelievers. To trust “blindly” would be to trust without evidence. This is not the case.

My condolences. Good hunting, Britain.

Maybe I should say I think a religion should be able to stand on its own merit and not what some people may do or have done with it which misrepresents it. The vile things that people may do in the name of religion may not have anything to do with the religion itself. That's why I thought it might be interesting to compare Christianity with Islam. What approach does each one take based on their founders. To better understand where each is really coming from.

I wasn't trying to establish their motive. I was just saying that some will use that as an excuse to not like Christians or Christianity.

It's not.

I'll bet God didn't sanction that either, Bill. However, some will use that as an excuse to put down Christianity. They'll say, "See what people do in the name of religion?" Although, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what it's all about.

How can you claim that when he says he didn't come in peace you claim I am wrong? Context… Look at what you’re saying versus what you’re quoting. You’re saying “come in peace.” The Scripture says “come to send peace.” He’s talking about his message. Sword is in reference to “the truth”, “the word”, the “path to righteousness.” Like I said before, he was predicting that his message would bring about opposition, division, & persecution. What he correct? I think so. I agree. The Bible is also a history book full of violence. However, your quotes from the Old Testament are simply laws of the Nation of Israel and not necessarily God’s law. I agree that “only the nutters” would pick a verse out of the Old Testament containing a civil law of a particular nation, claim that it is God’s law, and use it to justify some violent action on their part.

He did in fact come in peace and lived a life based on that but the truth of his “message” brought opposition, division, and persecution. It was predicted by him. Context is everything Ron. This second quote is a rehash of the first. Same meaning. Jesus never taught violence. Your quotes are misinterpreted.

Interesting but very shortsighted problems. There are more important things.

You know....who cares? What's the important stuff you should be focused on?

It would be interesting to compare the principle teachings of Jesus & Muhammad. [e.g. Muhammad killed, advocated killing, and came about as a warrior; Jesus came from lowly beginnings, lived sinless and only advocated peace.) I’m talking about the principals of the religions, not what people have done with them (right or wrong).

I guess you’re saying that the New Testament goes against what God commanded in the Old Testament with regard to adding to it. Unless, Jesus was who he claimed to be. Don't Gen. 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts?

I must have posted this at least 5 times in the past refuting the same old attacks you and others bring against the Bible. The Bible is not just a book of morals from front to back. It is also a history book. All of these quotes you & Ron bring must be brought into “context.” I’m sure that’s also the case with the Quran. An understanding of the differences in the laws of the Old Testament is important. Laws enforced by the Nation of Israel are not necessarily “God’s” laws.

This is yet another example of the secularization of the Christian Church. With the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our culture, many churches and denominations are deviating from the teachings of their faith. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths," (2 Tim. 4:3-4). They are doing things such as adopting unbiblical ideas, changing the Bible to suit neutral gender wording, and altering the text to fit their own agendas. Whether you believe the Bible to be true or false, it is clearly spelled out with regard to homosexuality. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God," (1 Cor. 6:9-10, NASB).

It's not "my" standard in that "I" didn't make it up. They won't burn in hell because they love one another or because they do admirable things.

So where do you get your moral standard? Why is it immoral, according to your standard which may be different from another's standard which may be different from another's standard, to have multiple partners? Anyway: Moral sex = Sex within the confines of marriage (between one man & one woman) Immoral sex = Sex outside the confines of marriage (between one man & one woman)

Nicely put.