With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians
- Thread starter §outh§tar
- Start date
David F.
When Jesus spoke of His immediate return, He specifically said "EVERY EYE" would see Him. Of course, apart from the direct implication that He supposed the earth to be flat, no eye has seen the Son of Man in the skies with glory and the angelic host for 2000 years.
Therefore it cannot be history, unless Jesus was lying when He said all those things would be visible to all to witness His glory.
When Jesus spoke of His immediate return, He specifically said "EVERY EYE" would see Him. Of course, apart from the direct implication that He supposed the earth to be flat, no eye has seen the Son of Man in the skies with glory and the angelic host for 2000 years.
Therefore it cannot be history, unless Jesus was lying when He said all those things would be visible to all to witness His glory.
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
§outh§tar said:
Nah, what he really meant, when he said every eye will see him, is that everyone will be able to turn on their tv's and see his return, so he wasn't implying a flat earth at all.
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
David F. said:
I'm guessing Revelation was referring to the Jews when he said "those who pierced him." Only one Roman literally pierced Jesus according to the Gospel accounts, from what I can tell. I'm guessing "those who pierced" might be a reference to the Zechariah verse which says they'll "look upon him (or me depending on what translation one uses) they have pierced". Though this is just my opinion.
As to the "whole world" thing, in my opinion you do have a point, as Paul seems to say that the gospel had already been preached to the whole world, so I'm not even sure if the gospel authors were aware of much of Africa, India, China, Australia, and I highly doubt they were aware of the New World. I have a difficult time believing that Jesus was only referring to the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem, because the language that's used is very apocalyptic referring to the stars of heaven falling (which can't actually happen, as stars aren't merely small points of light which come down to earth as meteorites), sun being darkened, the moon will not shed her light, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Mark 13:25 also states that the stars of heaven shall fall, and Luke 21:25 talks about signs in the sun, moon, stars, sea and waves roaring. Matthew 24:21 says "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." That sounds like more than a local destruction to me.
Last edited:
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
David F. said:
I understand that it may be interpreted as symbolic, but I don't see why one should. Stars falling from heaven, what were meteorites thought of in the past? Falling stars, right? If Jesus really returned in AD 70, then why was the early church still waiting for his return? As for the "day with the Lord is a thousand years idea", to me that's a rationalization, designed to answer why Jesus hadn't come back yet. That some later Christians (re Epistle of Barnabas) began to come to the realization that the end of the world may not be near, to me, that doesn't answer why in the NT that basically every verse which speaks of Jesus' coming/end of the world implies it happening within a generation (besides the 2nd Peter quote). If Ussher was right in his calculations, Barnabas appears to have been wrong, as the end of the world didn't occur at 1996 or 2000. Then again, according to the Jews, it's only year 5765.
Last edited:
I think your priorities are wrong. Trust and faith are infinitely more valuable than the ability to resolve a couple of Bible passages. After all, practically anyone, given sufficient simplicity of the subject matter, can produce a work without errors. But, like all things, what we call an error is based on perspective. I can say to Persol that he did not find an error in the Bible. He may have, given his radical perspective of nonbelief. But any error that he finds is certainly based upon his perspective, only his perspective, and so I'm free to reject. With the writings of the Bible, our perspective of each book must be differenct. We must not read Chronicles like Luke, Genesis like Paul's writing because each writing has a distinctive purpose, unwritten as it were, and different basis in history.
Ok, but you might have faith without believing in everysingle detail of the Bible. This seems better to me; you might even come to believe most of the Bible when all the evidence comes to bare.
No, but what were telling you is that you cannot ask in Christ's name, while also testing Christ. We don't know when God will give us what we ask: it may be this very instant, it may be a few days, it may be in heaven.
This was just an example. In time of struggle, we grow closer if we are able to trust Christ more.
These possibilities may not be true but they seem plausible to me. For if these possibilities are true, our faith is consistent, our faith is also plausible.
Yes, but if you answered you verbally, you would think yourself insane. Often, I think God gives men questions, and lets men find the answers. A lot, I think, you must experience yourself.
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
§outh§tar said:Well that's the second person who's invited me to Islam since I started this thread.
That doesn't really surprise me. Just because you don't believe in Christianity, that doesn't mean you should "embrace Islam" in my opinion. I've yet to see some great overwhelming evidence that the Qur'an is from God or that Muhammad is a prophet. Personally, I find more reason to believe in the Bible (despite its "apparent" flaws) than the Qur'an (and the Hadith, because that seems to be the usual position, that it's not merely the Qur'an, but also the Hadith, so it's not quite true in my opinion that the Muslims only have "one book").
Last edited:
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
David F. said:
David, can you provide for me proof that the Epistle of Barnabas was written before 70 AD? If it was really from Barnabas, why isn't it in the Bible? You certainly may believe it was written before 70 AD, but I've checked two sources, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02299a.htm, and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/barnabas.html, the first saying it must have been written between 130-131 CE, and the 2nd saying after 70AD but before 135 CE. Now, I don't take these as authoritative. I'm merely saying that it's not something undisputed. There were a lot of epistles, gospels, etc, which were not universally accepted as authentic. Why should I believe this Epistle was written by an historical Barnabas?
Last edited:
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
David F. said:
According to the first link I provided, it says "It is necessary, therefore, to fall back on verses 3-5 of chapter xvi. Reference is here made to the command given by Adrian in A.D. 130 for the reconstruction, in honour of Jupiter, of the Temple at Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by Titus. Adrian had also forbidden the Jews to practise circumcision. The writer of the letter makes allusion to this (ch. ix, 4). The epistle must, consequently, have been written in A.D. 130-131."
I don't find neglecting to mention certain things necessarily evidence. Forgers who are smart, know how to forge intelligently.
Why give yourself away? Whether the Epistle of Barnabas was written by an historical Barnabas or not, who knows?If it makes you feel any better,it is of my opinion everyone,religous or atheist is brainwashed to some degree.
Look around you and spot all of the things people take up in a sheep kind of way,some people buy mobile/cell phones,next minute everyone has one and youre an outcast if you dont have one,or fashion,look at the way fashion changes and how if you dress a certain way different from everyone else youre odd,theres billions of examples of sheep like behavior and evidence we are creatures of habit.
And its all brainwashing to some degree because if you dont stand in line youre kinda cast away into the flames,metaphorically speaking.
I dont follow trends,i dont listen to pop music,i wear what i want and do what i want and what i think is right,within reason...there again there is laws these days and you have moral police in the media preaching thier shit.
Everyone follows something and they aint always right in doing so,most of it is based on herd mentality and you do things based on what others say.
Im a true atheist,ABSOLUTELY no evidence you give me of gods existence says he exists,its prepostorous,i dont care what evidence there is either way,even if a scientist or hundreds of scientists come up with proof id still consider it as rubbish,mainly cos god is supposed to be outside all that and if there is a scientific reasoning and proof for god,then IT isnt a god cos that would make god natural rather than supernatural,and if god is natural then god falls foul of fundemental laws and problems arise when mentioning proton decay and so on cos being a natural substance leads you to live a long time but not eternal,
NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
So in the end im convinced its always a theory,god is a theoretical model outside of nature and a faulty one at that for many reasons.
But its one of those things,once you invent that idea in your head how the fuck do you shake it,i mean heres one:
outside the universe is cheese,the universe exists inside a large lump of cheese,
now as stupid as that sounds try proving me wrong now ive mentioned it,you cant cos ive invented the very idea.
The only reason god is more appealing than a lump of cheese is cos it tries to explain how the universe got here and why youre here,a lump of cheese dont really tell you anything.
Santa clause:you are brainwashed as a child to believe in santa clause,comon there is no two ways about it,convincing children of a charachter who has magical powers and is able to send presents to all the children round the world in one night flying around in a sliegh with flying reindeer IS brainwashing,theres another example to the list,but kids believe it cos once you got a mass hypnosis in the very idea coupled with the story making sense,its hard for a child to disprove the idea in thier mind alone,cos all the other kids at school are telling them they are wrong,now im an atheist but i understand the mindset cos i had it as a child,i mean i really believed that shite,some people believe it right up in thier teens somehow,but it is known.
You see,but as you get older you grow out of it (hopefully) cos as kids you can litterly be made to believe anything,but the idea of god is harder to shake,fo several reasons
1.its not just god,its the bible or some attached religion
2.humans have a natural fear of death
3.its hard to imagine not existing
4.its hard to imagine a universe created without "outside" help
Now the attached religion is where the storys come in,and its there where the holes show,as you quiet rightly pointed out in your main post to this thread there are other religions,well...why should yours be any more right than thiers?
thats the first thing id be asking,then id be looking at all the others thinking "well it all leads back to god or gods but each contradicts the other and they all have some moral guidence",
now fear of death and not existing is a major problem in the brains thought process,but when you think about it,its simpler and simpler solutions require an explanation so ill explain:
What was it like before you was born?
have a good think
NOTHING,NON EXISTENCE,was you bothered by it? NO cos you didnt exist,and its the SAME when you die,when you die its exactly the same as what it was like before you were born.
Why on earth should i be afraid of that?if anything religions version of death is a million billion times worse.
Its hard to imagine a universe created without outside help only cos your imagination and knowledge of science only stretches so far,as i say could be a lump of cheese,could be anything but it dont have to be supernatural,and if it aint supernatural it aint god.
Look around you and spot all of the things people take up in a sheep kind of way,some people buy mobile/cell phones,next minute everyone has one and youre an outcast if you dont have one,or fashion,look at the way fashion changes and how if you dress a certain way different from everyone else youre odd,theres billions of examples of sheep like behavior and evidence we are creatures of habit.
And its all brainwashing to some degree because if you dont stand in line youre kinda cast away into the flames,metaphorically speaking.
I dont follow trends,i dont listen to pop music,i wear what i want and do what i want and what i think is right,within reason...there again there is laws these days and you have moral police in the media preaching thier shit.
Everyone follows something and they aint always right in doing so,most of it is based on herd mentality and you do things based on what others say.
Im a true atheist,ABSOLUTELY no evidence you give me of gods existence says he exists,its prepostorous,i dont care what evidence there is either way,even if a scientist or hundreds of scientists come up with proof id still consider it as rubbish,mainly cos god is supposed to be outside all that and if there is a scientific reasoning and proof for god,then IT isnt a god cos that would make god natural rather than supernatural,and if god is natural then god falls foul of fundemental laws and problems arise when mentioning proton decay and so on cos being a natural substance leads you to live a long time but not eternal,
NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
So in the end im convinced its always a theory,god is a theoretical model outside of nature and a faulty one at that for many reasons.
But its one of those things,once you invent that idea in your head how the fuck do you shake it,i mean heres one:
outside the universe is cheese,the universe exists inside a large lump of cheese,
now as stupid as that sounds try proving me wrong now ive mentioned it,you cant cos ive invented the very idea.
The only reason god is more appealing than a lump of cheese is cos it tries to explain how the universe got here and why youre here,a lump of cheese dont really tell you anything.
Santa clause:you are brainwashed as a child to believe in santa clause,comon there is no two ways about it,convincing children of a charachter who has magical powers and is able to send presents to all the children round the world in one night flying around in a sliegh with flying reindeer IS brainwashing,theres another example to the list,but kids believe it cos once you got a mass hypnosis in the very idea coupled with the story making sense,its hard for a child to disprove the idea in thier mind alone,cos all the other kids at school are telling them they are wrong,now im an atheist but i understand the mindset cos i had it as a child,i mean i really believed that shite,some people believe it right up in thier teens somehow,but it is known.
You see,but as you get older you grow out of it (hopefully) cos as kids you can litterly be made to believe anything,but the idea of god is harder to shake,fo several reasons
1.its not just god,its the bible or some attached religion
2.humans have a natural fear of death
3.its hard to imagine not existing
4.its hard to imagine a universe created without "outside" help
Now the attached religion is where the storys come in,and its there where the holes show,as you quiet rightly pointed out in your main post to this thread there are other religions,well...why should yours be any more right than thiers?
thats the first thing id be asking,then id be looking at all the others thinking "well it all leads back to god or gods but each contradicts the other and they all have some moral guidence",
now fear of death and not existing is a major problem in the brains thought process,but when you think about it,its simpler and simpler solutions require an explanation so ill explain:
What was it like before you was born?
have a good think
NOTHING,NON EXISTENCE,was you bothered by it? NO cos you didnt exist,and its the SAME when you die,when you die its exactly the same as what it was like before you were born.
Why on earth should i be afraid of that?if anything religions version of death is a million billion times worse.
Its hard to imagine a universe created without outside help only cos your imagination and knowledge of science only stretches so far,as i say could be a lump of cheese,could be anything but it dont have to be supernatural,and if it aint supernatural it aint god.
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
David F. said:
I looked at the Epistle of Barnabas and, although I didn't thoroughly read it, I didn't see anywhere that it even claims to be from anyone named Barnabas. Maybe the author was an early 2nd century Christian. It's also possible that when the author says 6000 years, he was referring to 6000 from the time of his writing, not 6000 years from the beginning of the world. It seems sufficiently vague that it could be referring to either one. If he meant the former, then the world as we know it should end around 6130 AD?
Here's an interesting link I found which says: Around the beginning of the 4th century, Hippolytus of Rome put forth the theory that the world was created 5,500 years before the birth of Christ, thus leaving the world another 200 years before the end of time. [http://camel2.conncoll.edu/academics/departments/relstudies/290/christianity/year.html]And another:
He [Ussher] also ignored the differences between the ancient manuscript traditions. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church, following the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation), placed the date of Creation at least 5,500 years before Christ, and many expected the end of time in 1492. [http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/end/MillenialFever.html].
So. who knows in what year the author of the Epistle of Barnabas thought was the beginning of the world? Maybe the time the author of this epistle had in mind already came and went.
As for what you said about the accusation of some scholars that the NT was written later by ghost authors being thoroughly disproven, I suppose that depends on what you mean by that, and what "scholars" you wish to believe. At one end, John AT Robinson wrote that basically the whole NT was written before 70 AD. On the other end, there's Acharya S who thinks some of the NT is as late as around 170 AD. I don't see any definitive answer either way. There are fragments which some believe date early, some are speculative. Paleography is not an exact science, it's not like it can pin down a definite date. One fragment is P52 which MAY be a part of the Gospel of John (or may not, it's very fragmented, I suppose it could have been a part of the Gospel of Nicodemus or a common source rather than the Gospel of John) which some date around 125 AD. But an "A. Schmidt" dated it to around 170 CE (+/- 25) on the basis of a comparison with Papyrus Chester Beatty X. Conservatives might pick an early date, while "liberals" might pick a latter date. So who really knows?
Last edited:
TheMatrixIsReal said:
Theres the problem,youve pointed it out extremely well i might add,and that is no matter what you say to deny gods existence some asshole is always gonna counter it with
"well he created it all and can do anything"
yeah yeah yeah,but it goes back to what i said once you invent something like the concept of god you cant shift it very easily,thats cos as i keep saying:god is in the minds of its believers and thats it,its imaginary and works for them,but thats all it is.
I mean you gotta understand what youre saying is nothing more than unproven theory,you cant just turn round and say your expert opinion is right,i mean it aint fair.
My opinion is based on what ive observed and i aint seen no god,and ive not seen a shred of evidence to suggest god exists,
not only that but everyones "proof" is based on its self fulfilling concept,that is as you rightly say omnipotence,but its a fantasy concept invented by the believers.
I mean i had a jehovas witness knock on the door a few weeks back,and i says to him "you believe that bible word for word pretty much dont ya?"
hes like "yes i do" so i thought right, "so according to you the universe was created in 6 days,6000 years ago was it"
hes like "well,the bible..."
yeah never mind the fucking bible,how comes it dont mention dinosaurs,they were here for millions of years,man has only been here a couple of million,but oh no,i have to abandon all that modern archeology and science as rubbish and believe in crap like noahs arc and adam and eve.
You see people just buy into this crap,theres no changing thier belief,its hard for them to change it once they got these ideas in thier head.
THE big mistake for many 'atheists' in dis-missing the concept of 'God' as it has ben handed down to us by the patriarchy is when they then assume that theref is also no deep experience.
I am saying there is. Of course this feeling can spontaneously arise, but the easiest way is via hallucinogens, which is direct experience.....so, for example:
you are a little kid, a tot, and all the world is a wonder. you are curious about everything, and ask loads of questions
sooon, prents start on you, then school, and other perr-victims of this mindset--depending on what mindset you are in....and then natrual world begins to look dull. many kids spend most of their time in a room on a playstation. lots of money for the makers right?
now. pretend this.......you have eaten some magic mushrooms, yeah? and you go out into the park and you see a flower, and look at it. it is completely different isn't it. now you are expereincing it in a wholly deeper way than usual. THAT is experiencing deepness. That is Goddess, or whatever term you want. you are experiencing directly
does this mean we can see that way all the time. no. but it means that you have insight. and this insight integrates when Trip wears off. you have gotten more capacity of openess and understanding. the dull conditioning from a dead culture is waning
I am saying there is. Of course this feeling can spontaneously arise, but the easiest way is via hallucinogens, which is direct experience.....so, for example:
you are a little kid, a tot, and all the world is a wonder. you are curious about everything, and ask loads of questions
sooon, prents start on you, then school, and other perr-victims of this mindset--depending on what mindset you are in....and then natrual world begins to look dull. many kids spend most of their time in a room on a playstation. lots of money for the makers right?
now. pretend this.......you have eaten some magic mushrooms, yeah? and you go out into the park and you see a flower, and look at it. it is completely different isn't it. now you are expereincing it in a wholly deeper way than usual. THAT is experiencing deepness. That is Goddess, or whatever term you want. you are experiencing directly
does this mean we can see that way all the time. no. but it means that you have insight. and this insight integrates when Trip wears off. you have gotten more capacity of openess and understanding. the dull conditioning from a dead culture is waning
If i eat magic mushrooms of coarse im gonna see a load of bullshit,
its a fucking halucinogenic init,it fucks your brain up.
Im sure if i stabbed a knife in my skull i might see some weird shit before i die,i compare that to the way a computer might act if you run a knife through its hard drive,you might get weird shit on screen.
So i agree you fuck up chemical balances and effect the normal function of things of coarse you see weird shit,it dont mean youre seeing "the other side" or god or whatever,it just means youre frying your brain.
its a fucking halucinogenic init,it fucks your brain up.
Im sure if i stabbed a knife in my skull i might see some weird shit before i die,i compare that to the way a computer might act if you run a knife through its hard drive,you might get weird shit on screen.
So i agree you fuck up chemical balances and effect the normal function of things of coarse you see weird shit,it dont mean youre seeing "the other side" or god or whatever,it just means youre frying your brain.
atheist do not dismiss the concept of god,as to many people believe, we dismiss the fact it exists.
and duendy: religious people are delusional, already with out taking drugs.
and duendy: religious people are delusional, already with out taking drugs.
SouthStar said:
I think that you have just reached the point where you realized that you want a *personal* and *not* an *institutionalized* relationship with God. An institutionalized belief is regarding your person, but it is not personal.
This is a dangerous position to be, since if you give up the insitutionalized belief, you have no safe (" ") nest to go back to. Once you decide for your belief in God to be personal, there is only room for you and God in it. And this is fearsome territory to tread.
But don't be angry with those who persist in their institutionalized belief. They just haven't overcome their fear of having a personal belief.
No, RosaMagika, I'm doing precisly the opposite of that, I advice him to take it easy, not forcing faith.RosaMagika said:
The one that I replied to said that maybe he must pray a couple of times, I said that he doesn't have to pray more than once, cause God allready know what he wants.
It could be as you say that he needs to personalise his belief though.
Yes, you can't force it.§outh§tar said:
Listen to yourself.
I don't say that you should accept the wrong as right.
We have to give in to the idea of God (in the moment) just not saying that we believe in God, but actually believe.
He is knocking - let Him in.
Maybe you shouldn't base all your belief on the Bible? Maybe you should have better alternatives as to what to do?§outh§tar said:
Cause it seems that you are arguing with yourself as to why you shouldn't believe. Maybe you should stop that, and look at what you can believe, before you loose it all.
Why would ignorance be rewarded? You do know that even atheists have ignorance.
Love for the truth is rewarded though. So what is the truth? What should you believe? What you know, you know - but be sure that you really know it (from experiance and so on).
What you believe you should find for yourself, cause no one can tell you what to believe. Some things just seems trustworthy to some people. What can you find?
Sure you can do something.
I don't think God would look away from someone that has done his best.
Be sure of your reasons though.
And don't be afraid.
Last edited:
I haven't been to this forum for some time. I'm responding to the first post, and have not read the whole thread.
Southstar, I sympathise - I have been in your position. I suspect you have troubled times ahead.
I eventually chose to embrace the path of what is usually referred to as weak atheism, but not without many interesting and painful adventures, particularly with family.
One thing that it took me some time to come to appreciate is that Faith is not a bad thing; it seems to me that faith at some level it is absolutely necessary to function. The only difference is in what axioms we choose to place our faith in. If someone wishes to choose the existence of God as an axiom, then I see that as a valid choice. It may be something you choose yourself. If you do, then do so with confidence! There should be no shame involved in such a conscious decision.
I'd like to offer my support through whatever paths you take in this journey - PM me if you'd like my email address (I'm trying to reduce my sciforums time ).
Southstar, I sympathise - I have been in your position. I suspect you have troubled times ahead.
I eventually chose to embrace the path of what is usually referred to as weak atheism, but not without many interesting and painful adventures, particularly with family.
One thing that it took me some time to come to appreciate is that Faith is not a bad thing; it seems to me that faith at some level it is absolutely necessary to function. The only difference is in what axioms we choose to place our faith in. If someone wishes to choose the existence of God as an axiom, then I see that as a valid choice. It may be something you choose yourself. If you do, then do so with confidence! There should be no shame involved in such a conscious decision.
I'd like to offer my support through whatever paths you take in this journey - PM me if you'd like my email address (I'm trying to reduce my sciforums time
).