With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

[Halcyon]

Halcyon, who is Jesus Christ?
Why are there so many books from around the world that tell about him?
What if he came back to earth in his 2nd Coming, and stood right in front of your face.
Why did about 240 authors write about him appearing in the americas?

What books!? If you're aware of so many books about the man, the myth, the legend, jesus christ his holy self, then alert some scholars. If he came and stood next to me, I'd shake his hand. If you'd payed attention to earlier posts of mine, you'd realize you've made another mistake. I've never doubted the man's existence, or his teachings.

So, you need to quit going through my posting history and trying to attack me anywhere you erroneously perceive a weakness just because you lost face in the parapsych forum.

Oh yeah,

Why did about 240 authors write about him appearing in the americas?

Prove it.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Stinger: Halcyon, who is Jesus Christ?
*************
M*W: You wrote this to Halcyon, but you seem to be grossly misled. Jesus may have been a man, a Rabbi, but many scholars believe he didn't exist at all, including some members here on sciforums.
*************
Stringer: Why are there so many books from around the world that tell about him?
*************
M*W: There are so many books from around the world that tell about a lot of people, namely Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Cite one of these books that mention first-hand that Jesus Christ existed as a historical person.
*************
Stringer: What if he came back to earth in his 2nd Coming, and stood right in front of your face.
*************
M*W: A myth can't return and neither can a dead man. It's a little late to still be waiting for his return. Face it, man, he's NOT coming.
*************
Stringer: Why did about 240 authors write about him appearing in the americas?
*************
M*W: Cite one that saw him with their own eyes -- in the flesh. If Jesus stood right in front of me, I'd say, Jeez, welcome to sciforums.com.

 

[Cyperium]

I thought you admitted that the Bible is flawed and that it is not the source of wisdom/knowledge, whatever you want to call it.

Why do you then contradict yourself and quote from a flawed Book?

The Bible has errors, I have to admit that.

That doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is wrong. The Bible has alot of wisdom in it. You shouldn't underestimate the Bible.

I do feel that a common truth is described in the Bible, some parts in the Bible can give light to other parts, you have to look at the whole picture.

Somehow I think we can recognise what is true.

I try to help you §outh§tar, you can use what I say any way you want, but if you try to use it against me then I take it as a provocation. Instead of seeking a "word-battle" you could try to see what I'm trying to say and tell me what you don't think is right and what you think is right. That way me may come to some conclusion.

 

[DoctorNO]

That doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is wrong. The Bible has alot of wisdom in it.

Very true.

 

[Cyperium]

Godless has pretty much answered the first half for me so..

I was talking to you §outh§tar, whats your words on that?

Do you mean faith in the Christian God (Jesus)? Again, I thought you admitted the Bible is flawed? Why do you continue to believe in a flawed Book, as Persol asked earlier?

I believe what I can believe in. If I can't believe in the flaws then I don't. If I can then I have reasons for thinking it isn't a flaw. If the reasons turn out to be untrue, then I obviously can't believe in it.

Most of the things that I've found in the Bible, have a certain feeling of truth in it. I feel by experiance and faith that it is true. Most things have connections that lead to things that we have experianced ourselves, thus we may see that it has relevence in our life and in the situations that we encounter.

 

[1Dude]

Many "apparent" Bible contradictions do have very real answers for those who will at least consider them. A few of the answers that exist are available at the following link.

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/contradictions.htm

Best Wishes SouthStar,

Ken

 

[DoctorNO]

Many "apparent" Bible contradictions do have very real answers for those who will at least consider them. A few of the answers that exist are available at the following link.

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/contradictions.htm

Best Wishes SouthStar,

Ken

Yes that is true. If you go down to it only a very few are unsolvable contradictions.

 

[water]

Personal.. institutionalized. I thought I knew the difference..

Do you think you know it now?

Supposing there is a God. I knew not of any other God apart from the Christian one. Since we parted ways, I don't know of any other God. I am willing to have *some* measure of faith (won't be as zealous as before), but I am going to need some extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary God.

This, just as an argument, not directed against you: The safest way to never find God is to define God as something unreachable, unknovable, someting extraordinary: this way, one can afford to not have faith, as it indeed is madness to have faith in an unreachable, unknovable and extraordinary God. But I find it self-sabotaging to define God that way.

Well, you'd think now that I gave up Christianity they'd at least take a more objective look at things for themselves. Instead they thing I'm deluded and they keep telling me to hang in there. If that isn't frustrating then..

From my experience with Mormons I can say that certain people will sooner discard you rather than re-think and maybe alter their belief. It is a self-defense mechanism. That's how it works.
And if anything, those who persist in calling you delusional are not accepting you as you are -- and there is no point in trying to be close with those people, or trying to make them understand.

Why would anyone want to believe in a Book they acknowledge to be flawed? Seems like sheep mentality, but I wouldn't be one to talk..

Ultimately, every human belief is in some way circular and based on some axioms that cannot be proved. The part of wisdom is how one handles those axioms than cannot be proved: fighting about them and trying to justify them won't bear any other fruits but sorrow and violence.

I think it would be wiser for those around you to care about your health and your work, rather than care about your religious belief.

 

[§outh§tar]

Yes that is true. If you go down to it only a very few are unsolvable contradictions.

From the site:
---------
Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons
(2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;

Answer: Merab, the sister of Michal, was the wife of Adriel and bore him the
five sons mentioned. But Merab dying early, her royal sister Michal, having
been rejected by David, brought up the five boys. Because
of this they were spoken of as the children of Michal rather than of Merab.
In agreement with this the Isaac Leeser translation (7th Ed., 1922, Bloch
Publishing Co.) reads a 2 Samuel 21:8: “And the five sons of Michal the
daughter of Saul, whom she had brought up for Adriel.” A footnote reads:
“As Michal was David’s wife; but the children were those of Merab, the
oldest daughter of Saul, who were probably educated by her sister.”
---------

2 Samuel
7 The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the oath before the LORD between David and Jonathan son of Saul. 8 But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, [1] whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite.


As you can see, the context of the verses in NO WAY supports the writer's fallacious claim. That is a pretty sad explanation for someone who claims these discrepancies can be cleared by taking the verses in "context", when the same 'context' does not even qualify his explanation.

And if the Bible can only be understood 'properly' in the original languages, then God's work is futile as millions will die ignorant, supposing that they had the Word of God all the while. Moreover, the original manuscripts do not exist therefore to claim "copyist errors" is stupidity beyond belief. It is quite clear that there is subjectivity at work.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

From the site:
---------
Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons
(2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;

Answer: Merab, the sister of Michal, was the wife of Adriel and bore him the
five sons mentioned. But Merab dying early, her royal sister Michal, having
been rejected by David, brought up the five boys. Because
of this they were spoken of as the children of Michal rather than of Merab.
In agreement with this the Isaac Leeser translation (7th Ed., 1922, Bloch
Publishing Co.) reads a 2 Samuel 21:8: “And the five sons of Michal the
daughter of Saul, whom she had brought up for Adriel.” A footnote reads:
“As Michal was David’s wife; but the children were those of Merab, the
oldest daughter of Saul, who were probably educated by her sister.”
---------

2 Samuel
7 The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the oath before the LORD between David and Jonathan son of Saul. 8 But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, [1] whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite.


As you can see, the context of the verses in NO WAY supports the writer's fallacious claim. That is a pretty sad explanation for someone who claims these discrepancies can be cleared by taking the verses in "context", when the same 'context' does not even qualify his explanation.

And if the Bible can only be understood 'properly' in the original languages, then God's work is futile as millions will die ignorant, supposing that they had the Word of God all the while. Moreover, the original manuscripts do not exist therefore to claim "copyist errors" is stupidity beyond belief. It is quite clear that there is subjectivity at work.

That was beautiful §outh§tar! You exercised some wonderful logic and derived
some very powerful and true conclusions.

 

[Pete]

From the site:
---------
Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons
(2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;

Answer: Merab, the sister of Michal, was the wife of Adriel and bore him the
five sons mentioned. But Merab dying early, her royal sister Michal, having
been rejected by David, brought up the five boys. Because
of this they were spoken of as the children of Michal rather than of Merab.
In agreement with this the Isaac Leeser translation (7th Ed., 1922, Bloch
Publishing Co.) reads a 2 Samuel 21:8: “And the five sons of Michal the
daughter of Saul, whom she had brought up for Adriel.” A footnote reads:
“As Michal was David’s wife; but the children were those of Merab, the
oldest daughter of Saul, who were probably educated by her sister.”
---------

2 Samuel
7 The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the oath before the LORD between David and Jonathan son of Saul. 8 But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, [1] whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite.


As you can see, the context of the verses in NO WAY supports the writer's fallacious claim. That is a pretty sad explanation for someone who claims these discrepancies can be cleared by taking the verses in "context", when the same 'context' does not even qualify his explanation.

And if the Bible can only be understood 'properly' in the original languages, then God's work is futile as millions will die ignorant, supposing that they had the Word of God all the while. Moreover, the original manuscripts do not exist therefore to claim "copyist errors" is stupidity beyond belief. It is quite clear that there is subjectivity at work.

There is no question that the Bible says that Michal had no kids.
There is no question that the Bible says that five sons were borne to Adriel
The question is whether the Bible says that the five sons were borne by Merab or Michal. If Michal - contradiction. If Merab - not.

BibleGateway's rendition of the NIV says that the boys were Merabs, with the footnote:
21:8 Two Hebrew manuscripts, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 1 Samuel 18:19); most Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts Michal

1 Samuel 18:19 says that Adriel married Merab, giving weight to the notion that the boys were borne by Merab, not Michal.

My conclusion - no contradiction here!

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Don't know why I bothered to read through this, but when one does so an overriding impression remains.

Watch a video, sometime, of a pack of wild jackals feeding on a carcass. Watch them. See yourselves.

 

[water]

Don't know why I bothered to read through this, but when one does so an overriding impression remains.

Watch a video, sometime, of a pack of wild jackals feeding on a carcass. Watch them. See yourselves.

You do realize that you have just called SouthStar a carcass?

And as for the video analogy: Guess who is behind the camera, filming?

 

[Pete]

Don't know why I bothered to read through this,

I don't know why you bothered contributing. Thanks for nothing.

 

[Persol]

You do realize that you have just called SouthStar a carcass?

Considering you just as much as blamed the failed of christianity on him, I'd say he's pretty much dead to your religion.

 

[water]

Considering you just as much as blamed the failed of christianity on him, I'd say he's pretty much dead to your religion.

You have commited a hasty generalization in only skim-reading my posts.
If you had payed attention, you'd see that my whole argument goes in the direction of personal vs. institutionalized faith, and that I think SouthStar came to the point where institutionalized faith is not something he could honestly strive for.

Plus, you have assigned me to be a Christian, which I am not -- not in the sense of believing in the Bible and going to church on Sunday.

 

[Stinger]

Book of mormon

 

[Godless]

Damnnn it's early in the morning I read "book of morons" LOL...

Gis!! were are my glasses?.

Godless.

 

[§outh§tar]

Do you think you know it now?

They both seem too arbitrary to be distinguishable. I understand the belief requires some measure of faith, but both extremes appear to be equally unreasonable. But then I haven't tried every single avenue of belief, nor am I willing to. I humble myself to a God to reveal Himself to me; I fear I cannot find Him if I cannot define Him.

This, just as an argument, not directed against you: The safest way to never find God is to define God as something unreachable, unknovable, someting extraordinary: this way, one can afford to not have faith, as it indeed is madness to have faith in an unreachable, unknovable and extraordinary God. But I find it self-sabotaging to define God that way.

So you do say there is a way to "define" God?

From my experience with Mormons I can say that certain people will sooner discard you rather than re-think and maybe alter their belief. It is a self-defense mechanism. That's how it works.
And if anything, those who persist in calling you delusional are not accepting you as you are -- and there is no point in trying to be close with those people, or trying to make them understand.

Rather unfortunate really. If their faith is unshakable and substantiated, I don't see what the problem is in taking a different perspective of things. I mean, that's what happened to me. I set out to look at various arguments against Christianity to disprove them and, ironically, I ended up being the one changed. And that's something.. considering my previous zeal for the faith which I'm sure you all knew.

Ultimately, every human belief is in some way circular and based on some axioms that cannot be proved. The part of wisdom is how one handles those axioms than cannot be proved: fighting about them and trying to justify them won't bear any other fruits but sorrow and violence.

I think it would be wiser for those around you to care about your health and your work, rather than care about your religious belief.

But some beliefs have more 'substance' to them than others. All Christians believe to some degree, the Biblical biographies of Jesus. When confronted with anachronisms, outright contradictions and doctrinal difficulties, they simply shrug and say 'God's thoughts are just so much above ours'.

Come to think of it, I once used to accept this "explanation" but not see it as a poor excuse and cop-out. If outright contradictions can be brushed aside so easily, then it implies that there really are no contradictions since any contradiction is something which we are simply unable to understand due to human limitation. Of course, Christians then change tone and say this explanation only applies to the Bible. And so a deeper hole gets dug and the more arbitrary the believer becomes through "faith". It really is annoying, I don't see why "God's Word" should require circular reasoning to defend..

 

[Godless]

SouthStar; Wow you are still holding on strong, and I don't doubt for a minute that M*W was right you are strong mentally. I think the search for reason has made you aware that "reason" was not available through religion dogma. For "reason" is the mortal enemy of religious superstition.

On another thread while discussing with "beyontimeandspace" a theist of friendly nature and good to sharpen my lack of debating skills "lol" I begin to searh on a subject matter we were discusing. That god contradicts metaphysical law. I've come accross this bit of info you may appreciate; http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/God_Contradiction.htm

Godless.