TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

Because - as has been explained to you repeatedly - the alternative is to have marionettes lacking in free will. People have the power to make choices, including bad ones. It would hardly be "loving" to create puppets to dance on a string.

---

Ok, tell me why you won't be a marionette in heaven. Will you be able to sin or have freewill in heaven? Will you be able to make choices there, or will you be dancing on a string? If you have the capacity to sin there, then your understanding of the purpose of the human condition is pointless. If you can't sin there, likewise the human condition is pointless.

---

We will have a new nature with new desires. The desire to sin will be no more. It doesn't mean our free will is taken away.

Right now you have the free will to eat a plate of dog poo, but you just don't have any desire to and you're completely disgusted by it (at least I hope). Its just not in your nature to want it. There's so many other things so much better to eat that you can choose from. That's what sin will be like to us with our new nature in heaven.

---

Ok, so why not be created in heaven with that nature to begin with, if there is a loving omnipotent god? It's not consistent with logic.

The whole idea of any religion is not consistent with what we know about the universe.

---

Why be created in heaven that way to begin with, if God knows it's better this way? Then it would be perfectly logical, and perfectly consistent with loving omnipotence. Your thinking is just so limited and narrow. And you think you can judge an all-knowing God?

And you keep recycling your argument that "what we know about the universe debunks God and Christianity" despite the fact that I specifically challenged you on another thread to provide an example of this, and you failed - miserably. So why do you keep returning to a failed argument? Doesn't it concern you that it makes you look dumb, dishonest, or desperate?

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

Weren't those deaths "God commanded?"

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "because of quantum theory"

Now that's funny. Because I have read enough on Quantum Theory to know that even among physicists there is a sense that QT is to some degree unknowable ... Heisenberg says hi ... because of the documented behavior of quantum particles.

Using QT as if you understand the basics, let alone can claim mastery of it to the point that you can claim to be some kind of expert, is absurd on the level of pretending you have commercial muti-engine certification and 20,000 flight hours on a selected airframe just because you have seen aircraft and took an occasional ride as a passenger.

---

So ignorance is your excuse.

How do you know whether I have a multi-engine rating, a commercial license, or an ATP rating? You don't have to have 20,000 hours in order to safely fly a multi-engine aircraft. You do need a multi-engine rating, possibly an ATP rating, and a check ride to safely fly a specific aircraft or class of aircraft. But, all you need to understand the basics of flight and of how any aircraft works is some flight time, and knowledge of aerodynamics.

Guth, Hawking, Weinberg, Feynman, Bohr, Broglie, Laplace, Schrodinger, Bethe, Thorne, Kroemer, Franck, Bell, et al say hi back to ya. You don't have to understand everything about gravity to know that things fall when dropped.

---

You say those names as if dropping them replaces a valid argument.

And no son, it's not my understanding of Science which determines if you know what you are talking about, it's what you can establish, and frankly you do a piss-poor job of supporting your claims.

Demonstrate how Quantum Mechanics does what you say it does, if you want to pretend you can use it for your argument. Right now you come off as bloviating.

---

Ok Pops, consider whether you might be projecting when accusing someone of bloviating. Your understanding of quantum theory is irrelevant to reality. Others have already demonstrated that it is plausible the universe arose from nothing.

Quantum theory and general relativity tell us that it is plausible. And, what's more interesting is that the characteristics of a universe that arose from nothing have the same characteristics of our universe.

The Cliff Notes version: We know that empty space (nothing no radiation, no matter) is a bubbling cauldron where virtual particles pop in and out of existence on a time scale so small they can't be observed, yet quantum theory tells us they are there and we've measured their effects. Quantum theory has demonstrated that 70% of the energy in the universe resides in empty space, the amount needed for the total energy of our universe to equal zero. We know the universe we live in is flat, i.e. experientially three dimensional, because we've measured the geometry of the universe. In order to have a three dimensionally flat, inflated, closed universe, the total energy of the universe has to be zero. General relativity is a proven theory of space/time, and if general relativity is a quantum theory, as it appears to be, then whole space/times/ universes can pop in and out of existence, just like virtual particles pop in and out of existence. And, if gravity is a quantum theory, as it appears to be, then quantum theory tells us it is guaranteed that the gravitational component will produce a negative or attractive force to the positive energy of particles, and to space/time, which with a total energy of zero will allow matter and space/time to form and remain in existence, randomly creating matter, space/time and the laws that govern our particular three-dimensional universe - a universe with the exact characteristics we find ourselves living in.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

A loving God would want us to know and experience everything that is good. Without evil, pain, and suffering, we would not know and experience the good of God's justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and restoration. Also, we would not be able to know the good of empathy, love, and forgiveness of each other. Our faith could never be tested as true faith without tribulation. Good character is only built through hardship. And the experience of joy, pleasure, and happiness later in heaven and heaven on earth will be forever expanded because we knew pain and suffering first.

If, for example, a billionaire who only knew luxury his entire life, and a beggar on the street who barely eats enough to survive both were given a billion dollars - which would experience more joy? And which would love the giver of the money more? And which would have a deeper understanding of the pain and suffering in others?

---

So your god is so weak he couldn't create people, who would have that understanding, without having to suffer?

---

If God were to create people with an instant understanding of all that, then the knowledge of suffering would also be instantaneous. You won't be removing the absolute value of the suffering, you'd just be shortening the time frame. Because suffering is an integral part of the understanding. You can't have the understanding without it. You can't give a nickel to someone without giving them both sides. To say that God should just give the understanding without the suffering is saying He shouldn't give them the understanding at all.

To say that God should be powerful enough to make it so that you can have the understanding without the suffering would be paradoxical. God's omnipotence doesn't mean he can create paradoxes, i.e. He can't simultaneously destroy Himself and continue to exist. Neither does His omnipotence mean He can go against His nature, i.e. He doesn't have the power to sin. You have a poor understanding of the meaning of God's omnpotence.

---

You understand that being burned at the stake for someone's idea of heresy is horrible, without having to experience it.

---

To know that it is horrible requires a knowledge of suffering.

---

Quote:

---

To say that God should just give the understanding without the suffering is saying He shouldn't give them the understanding at all.

---

Why does he even need to give them the understanding of suffering, if He can just place them in heaven from the beginning? I guess you could say the need to suffer in order to understand it explains why Yahweh is guilty of pushing so many atrocities on mankind and other lifeforms. He has no knowledge of suffering.

Quote:

---

JXL:
Because as TarpDuster explained, you can have the capacity but not the desire. The general atmosphere of Heaven removes the desire.

---

Then there was no need to create anything other than heaven.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples. What is written is taken from circulating oral accounts that were preserved to some degree or other. Some accounts were not preserved or completely preserved. The problem is they conflict with each other, and none are written by an eye witness, and the teachings in the early church depend upon where and who you are following. The stories conflict with each other, and many things were added later to the writings, and probably were omitted to some degree also, depending upon the writer's theology. Christianity grew from the frame of reference of the people who embraced it and wrote about it. The nature of the NT god is inconsistent with the OT god; they are not one and the same, despite attempts to portray them as the same. Your sense of right and good, and serving God's glory and will is not necessarily the same as the next man's, who is trying to follow god. That's a huge problem. The Church isn't consistent in its belief, but it is a moral lodestone, in the sense that a lodestone in the presence of a compass can produce a false direction for magnetic north, which is already in error with true north.

---

Lots of assumptions here. First: you're assuming that the accounts weren't preserved accurately, despite the importance which the Jewish culture placed on (a) oral history and (b) preservation of what they considered holy. Not to mention - the disciples were still around during this presumed period of oral transmission, so they were likely the ones doing the telling.

And second: here is a book which may interest you.

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906

Synopsis:

Jesus and the Eyewitness' argues that the four Gospels are closely based on the eyewitness testimony of those who knew Jesus. The author challenges the assumption that the accounts of Jesus circulated as 'anonymous community traditions', asserting instead that they were transmitted in the name of the original eyewitnesses. To drive home this controversial point, Bauckham draws on internal literary evidence, the use of personal names in first-century Jewish Palestine, and recent developments in the understanding of oral tradition. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses also taps into the rich resources of modern study of memory, especially in cognitive psychology, refuting the conclusions of the form critics and calling New Testament scholarship to make a clean break with this long-dominant tradition. Finally, Bauckham challenges readers to end the classic division between the 'historical Jesus' and the'Christ of faith', proposing instead the 'Jesus of testimony' as presented by the Gospels. Sure to ignite heated debate on the precise character of the testimony about Jesus, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is a groundbreaking work that will be valued by scholars, students, and all who seek to understand the origins of the Gospels.

---

I think it's pretty clear that oral tradition, especially Jewish, has no relationship to reliable accuracy or reality. And it begs the question, why would Jesus need to rely upon some after the fact sect of primitive Christians to get it right years later? He could have written down what he wanted us to know and left it in a golden tabernacle for posterity.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples.

---

That seems to be an epistemological problem rather than a problem with the claims of Jesus as such. What kind of documentation, consistent with the practices of the time, would convince you of what Jesus said or did?

---

Jewish or Roman authorities. Someone like Josephus, but who was contemporaneous to Jesus timeframe, as far as what he said might give a more objective picture of what he actually said. Writing about "miracles" he did is another problem in and of itself, as far as believability. The whole question is irrelevant when considering that there are some many more obvious and convincing ways to convey the message or story without God having to depend upon the fallible nature of men to convey such a crucial and supreme message, assuming an all loving God wants to relay his message to mankind as much as possible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

A loving God would want us to know and experience everything that is good. Without evil, pain, and suffering, we would not know and experience the good of God's justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and restoration. Also, we would not be able to know the good of empathy, love, and forgiveness of each other. Our faith could never be tested as true faith without tribulation. Good character is only built through hardship. And the experience of joy, pleasure, and happiness later in heaven and heaven on earth will be forever expanded because we knew pain and suffering first.

If, for example, a billionaire who only knew luxury his entire life, and a beggar on the street who barely eats enough to survive both were given a billion dollars - which would experience more joy? And which would love the giver of the money more? And which would have a deeper understanding of the pain and suffering in others?

---

So your god is so weak he couldn't create people, who would have that understanding, without having to suffer?

---

If God were to create people with an instant understanding of all that, then the knowledge of suffering would also be instantaneous. You won't be removing the absolute value of the suffering, you'd just be shortening the time frame. Because suffering is an integral part of the understanding. You can't have the understanding without it. You can't give a nickel to someone without giving them both sides. To say that God should just give the understanding without the suffering is saying He shouldn't give them the understanding at all.

To say that God should be powerful enough to make it so that you can have the understanding without the suffering would be paradoxical. God's omnipotence doesn't mean he can create paradoxes, i.e. He can't simultaneously destroy Himself and continue to exist. Neither does His omnipotence mean He can go against His nature, i.e. He doesn't have the power to sin. You have a poor understanding of the meaning of God's omnpotence.

---

You understand that being burned at the stake for someone's idea of heresy is horrible, without having to experience it.

---

To know that it is horrible requires a knowledge of suffering.

---

Is that why Yahweh thought it was ok to order children to be slaughtered? He doesn't know suffering? Suffering is a condition of experiencing life. Why does anyone need to suffer or understand suffering? Isn't heaven free from suffering?

---

God's knowledge of suffering was precisely why He ordered it, in order to carry out a grand plan to ultimately defeat suffering.

And as I already explained, there are good things that would not be possible to know unless we know suffering. Instead of arguing in circles, try to read the answers that people already gave before you recycle your talking points that have already been defeated.

---

What is God's basis for knowing suffering. When did he suffer as humans during the OT times? What are the good things that you need to know in order to live in a state of utmost happiness in heaven? If you're in heaven and know suffering, then that knowledge of suffering renders you in a lesser spiritual state or condition of happiness than without that knowledge.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

Because - as has been explained to you repeatedly - the alternative is to have marionettes lacking in free will. People have the power to make choices, including bad ones. It would hardly be "loving" to create puppets to dance on a string.

---

Ok, tell me why you won't be a marionette in heaven. Will you be able to sin or have freewill in heaven? Will you be able to make choices there, or will you be dancing on a string? If you have the capacity to sin there, then your understanding of the purpose of the human condition is pointless. If you can't sin there, likewise the human condition is pointless.

---

We will have a new nature with new desires. The desire to sin will be no more. It doesn't mean our free will is taken away.

Right now you have the free will to eat a plate of dog poo, but you just don't have any desire to and you're completely disgusted by it (at least I hope). Its just not in your nature to want it. There's so many other things so much better to eat that you can choose from. That's what sin will be like to us with our new nature in heaven.

---

Ok, so why not be created in heaven with that nature to begin with, if there is a loving omnipotent god? It's not consistent with logic.

The whole idea of any religion is not consistent with what we know about the universe.

---

Why be created in heaven that way to begin with, if God knows it's better this way? Then it would be perfectly logical, and perfectly consistent with loving omnipotence. Your thinking is just so limited and narrow. And you think you can judge an all-knowing God?

And you keep recycling your argument that "what we know about the universe debunks God and Christianity" despite the fact that I specifically challenged you on another thread to provide an example of this, and you failed - miserably. So why do you keep returning to a failed argument? Doesn't it concern you that it makes you look dumb, dishonest, or desperate?

---

Your self serving pronouncements of victory are far from reality. You haven't debunked anything with regard to the universe, other than your understanding of it. Your arguments for the way God created things are inconsistent with logic. If God is all loving and all powerful, the condition of all life is unnecessary. Why would he even go to the trouble to create our universe, 13.8 billion years ago, where any life form, especially ours, is insignificant and inconsequential to the universe? And that's before you even try to cull out some sect of Christianity as overriding in importance to other man made religions.

Nice rant. Didn't prove anything but your temper, TS, but you got that anger up to full volume.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nice rant. Didn't prove anything but your temper, TS, but you got that anger up to full volume.

---

Try to address the facts instead of inventing phony deflections. Diversion and condescension doesn't help your cause.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples.

---

That seems to be an epistemological problem rather than a problem with the claims of Jesus as such. What kind of documentation, consistent with the practices of the time, would convince you of what Jesus said or did?

---

Jewish or Roman authorities. Someone like Josephus, but who was contemporaneous to Jesus timeframe, as far as what he said might give a more objective picture of what he actually said. Writing about "miracles" he did is another problem in and of itself, as far as believability. The whole question is irrelevant when considering that there are some many more obvious and convincing ways to convey the message or story without God having to depend upon the fallible nature of men to convey such a crucial and supreme message, assuming an all loving God wants to relay his message to mankind as much as possible.

---

You think historians are only qualified to write about contemporaneous people and events?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nice rant. Didn't prove anything but your temper, TS, but you got that anger up to full volume.

---

Try to address the facts instead of inventing phony deflections. Diversion and condescension doesn't help your cause.

---

Cute, but all I did was address the fact of your emotional post, TS.

And it's hypocritical for you to condescend, then claim that word when you get called on your dishonesty.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples.

---

That seems to be an epistemological problem rather than a problem with the claims of Jesus as such. What kind of documentation, consistent with the practices of the time, would convince you of what Jesus said or did?

---

Jewish or Roman authorities. Someone like Josephus, but who was contemporaneous to Jesus timeframe, as far as what he said might give a more objective picture of what he actually said. Writing about "miracles" he did is another problem in and of itself, as far as believability. The whole question is irrelevant when considering that there are some many more obvious and convincing ways to convey the message or story without God having to depend upon the fallible nature of men to convey such a crucial and supreme message, assuming an all loving God wants to relay his message to mankind as much as possible.

---

You think historians are only qualified to write about contemporaneous people and events?

---

I wouldn't think they should be disqualified, do you? The writings we do have are not contemporaneous. A written account by Pontius Pilate would have shed a lot of light on the truth surrounding the crucifixion, if it occurred. Since you are a believer, it seems to me that Yahweh could have picked a better time, or arranged for a better or more accurate accounting and recording of Jesus life, if the objective is to produce believers, don't you? And if that is the objective, then there are a multitude of clear cut ways for such a deity to reveal itself to the world it wants to believe. Obscuring the message indicates such a being is highly unlikely, or is at least disingenuous and not serious. There simply is no objective, empirical scientific evidence for the existence of any deity.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nice rant. Didn't prove anything but your temper, TS, but you got that anger up to full volume.

---

Try to address the facts instead of inventing phony deflections. Diversion and condescension doesn't help your cause.

---

Cute, but all I did was address the fact of your emotional post, TS.

And it's hypocritical for you to condescend, then claim that word when you get called on your dishonesty.

---

You're the one who started with the condescending, ad hominem attacks, and rhetorical accusations. I just responded in turn. Be honest with yourself.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nice rant. Didn't prove anything but your temper, TS, but you got that anger up to full volume.

---

Try to address the facts instead of inventing phony deflections. Diversion and condescension doesn't help your cause.

---

Cute, but all I did was address the fact of your emotional post, TS.

And it's hypocritical for you to condescend, then claim that word when you get called on your dishonesty.

---

You're the one who started with the condescending, ad hominem attacks, and rhetorical accusations. I just responded in turn. Be honest with yourself.

---

Nope, I just called you on your behavior. You are just throwing a tantrum.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples.

---

That seems to be an epistemological problem rather than a problem with the claims of Jesus as such. What kind of documentation, consistent with the practices of the time, would convince you of what Jesus said or did?

---

Jewish or Roman authorities. Someone like Josephus, but who was contemporaneous to Jesus timeframe, as far as what he said might give a more objective picture of what he actually said. Writing about "miracles" he did is another problem in and of itself, as far as believability. The whole question is irrelevant when considering that there are some many more obvious and convincing ways to convey the message or story without God having to depend upon the fallible nature of men to convey such a crucial and supreme message, assuming an all loving God wants to relay his message to mankind as much as possible.

---

You think historians are only qualified to write about contemporaneous people and events?

---

I wouldn't think they should be disqualified, do you? The writings we do have are not contemporaneous. A written account by Pontius Pilate would have shed a lot of light on the truth surrounding the crucifixion, if it occurred. Since you are a believer, it seems to me that Yahweh could have picked a better time, or arranged for a better or more accurate accounting and recording of Jesus life, if the objective is to produce believers, don't you? And if that is the objective, then there are a multitude of clear cut ways for such a deity to reveal itself to the world it wants to believe. Obscuring the message indicates such a being is highly unlikely, or is at least disingenuous and not serious. There simply is no objective, empirical scientific evidence for the existence of any deity.

---

Why would Pilate be more objective than Josephus?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples.

---

That seems to be an epistemological problem rather than a problem with the claims of Jesus as such. What kind of documentation, consistent with the practices of the time, would convince you of what Jesus said or did?

---

Jewish or Roman authorities. Someone like Josephus, but who was contemporaneous to Jesus timeframe, as far as what he said might give a more objective picture of what he actually said. Writing about "miracles" he did is another problem in and of itself, as far as believability. The whole question is irrelevant when considering that there are some many more obvious and convincing ways to convey the message or story without God having to depend upon the fallible nature of men to convey such a crucial and supreme message, assuming an all loving God wants to relay his message to mankind as much as possible.

---

You think historians are only qualified to write about contemporaneous people and events?

---

I wouldn't think they should be disqualified, do you? The writings we do have are not contemporaneous. A written account by Pontius Pilate would have shed a lot of light on the truth surrounding the crucifixion, if it occurred. Since you are a believer, it seems to me that Yahweh could have picked a better time, or arranged for a better or more accurate accounting and recording of Jesus life, if the objective is to produce believers, don't you? And if that is the objective, then there are a multitude of clear cut ways for such a deity to reveal itself to the world it wants to believe. Obscuring the message indicates such a being is highly unlikely, or is at least disingenuous and not serious. There simply is no objective, empirical scientific evidence for the existence of any deity.

---

Why would Pilate be more objective than Josephus?

---

Good question. As a procurator, Pilate would likely have been biased in terms of his policies, while as a Roman historian Josephus would likely have been biased in favor of his patrons.

But Pilate would be less likely than Josephus to want a written account of an event, because he'd prefer to have freedom to rule as he chose, and Rome was even then about intrigue and a written account could be used to advance an agenda or defeat a political opponent. A written account of Jesus' trial would therefore indicate an event so important in Pilate's opinion, that he would accept a written record of it.

Is there are reason to think that Jewish or Roman writers would give credence to a movement they were trying to stamp out? They would have considered him little more than a sorcerer, hardly worthy of attention.

JXL said:

---

Is there are reason to think that Jewish or Roman writers would give credence to a movement they were trying to stamp out? They would have considered him little more than a sorcerer, hardly worthy of attention.

---

Josephus would likely find the movement an interesting footnote, while Pilate would be likely to want to suppress any reference to the movement.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples.

---

That seems to be an epistemological problem rather than a problem with the claims of Jesus as such. What kind of documentation, consistent with the practices of the time, would convince you of what Jesus said or did?

---

Jewish or Roman authorities. Someone like Josephus, but who was contemporaneous to Jesus timeframe, as far as what he said might give a more objective picture of what he actually said. Writing about "miracles" he did is another problem in and of itself, as far as believability. The whole question is irrelevant when considering that there are some many more obvious and convincing ways to convey the message or story without God having to depend upon the fallible nature of men to convey such a crucial and supreme message, assuming an all loving God wants to relay his message to mankind as much as possible.

---

You think historians are only qualified to write about contemporaneous people and events?

---

I wouldn't think they should be disqualified, do you? The writings we do have are not contemporaneous. A written account by Pontius Pilate would have shed a lot of light on the truth surrounding the crucifixion, if it occurred. Since you are a believer, it seems to me that Yahweh could have picked a better time, or arranged for a better or more accurate accounting and recording of Jesus life, if the objective is to produce believers, don't you? And if that is the objective, then there are a multitude of clear cut ways for such a deity to reveal itself to the world it wants to believe. Obscuring the message indicates such a being is highly unlikely, or is at least disingenuous and not serious. There simply is no objective, empirical scientific evidence for the existence of any deity.

---

Why would Pilate be more objective than Josephus?

---

I don't know that he would. Why do you think Josephus would be unqualified to have written and account?

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nice rant. Didn't prove anything but your temper, TS, but you got that anger up to full volume.

---

Try to address the facts instead of inventing phony deflections. Diversion and condescension doesn't help your cause.

---

Cute, but all I did was address the fact of your emotional post, TS.

And it's hypocritical for you to condescend, then claim that word when you get called on your dishonesty.

---

You're the one who started with the condescending, ad hominem attacks, and rhetorical accusations. I just responded in turn. Be honest with yourself.

---

Nope, I just called you on your behavior. You are just throwing a tantrum.

---

No, you're just being argumentative.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nice rant. Didn't prove anything but your temper, TS, but you got that anger up to full volume.

---

Try to address the facts instead of inventing phony deflections. Diversion and condescension doesn't help your cause.

---

Cute, but all I did was address the fact of your emotional post, TS.

And it's hypocritical for you to condescend, then claim that word when you get called on your dishonesty.

---

You're the one who started with the condescending, ad hominem attacks, and rhetorical accusations. I just responded in turn. Be honest with yourself.

---

Nope, I just called you on your behavior. You are just throwing a tantrum.

---

No, you're just being argumentative.

---

TS being TS, all about the argument, never about learning anything. Maybe you could respond to my posts which did not set you off? We are somewhat close to agreeing about Pilate, for example.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

A loving God would want us to know and experience everything that is good. Without evil, pain, and suffering, we would not know and experience the good of God's justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and restoration. Also, we would not be able to know the good of empathy, love, and forgiveness of each other. Our faith could never be tested as true faith without tribulation. Good character is only built through hardship. And the experience of joy, pleasure, and happiness later in heaven and heaven on earth will be forever expanded because we knew pain and suffering first.

If, for example, a billionaire who only knew luxury his entire life, and a beggar on the street who barely eats enough to survive both were given a billion dollars - which would experience more joy? And which would love the giver of the money more? And which would have a deeper understanding of the pain and suffering in others?

---

So your god is so weak he couldn't create people, who would have that understanding, without having to suffer?

---

If God were to create people with an instant understanding of all that, then the knowledge of suffering would also be instantaneous. You won't be removing the absolute value of the suffering, you'd just be shortening the time frame. Because suffering is an integral part of the understanding. You can't have the understanding without it. You can't give a nickel to someone without giving them both sides. To say that God should just give the understanding without the suffering is saying He shouldn't give them the understanding at all.

To say that God should be powerful enough to make it so that you can have the understanding without the suffering would be paradoxical. God's omnipotence doesn't mean he can create paradoxes, i.e. He can't simultaneously destroy Himself and continue to exist. Neither does His omnipotence mean He can go against His nature, i.e. He doesn't have the power to sin. You have a poor understanding of the meaning of God's omnpotence.

---

You understand that being burned at the stake for someone's idea of heresy is horrible, without having to experience it.

---

To know that it is horrible requires a knowledge of suffering.

---

Is that why Yahweh thought it was ok to order children to be slaughtered? He doesn't know suffering? Suffering is a condition of experiencing life. Why does anyone need to suffer or understand suffering? Isn't heaven free from suffering?

---

God's knowledge of suffering was precisely why He ordered it, in order to carry out a grand plan to ultimately defeat suffering.

And as I already explained, there are good things that would not be possible to know unless we know suffering. Instead of arguing in circles, try to read the answers that people already gave before you recycle your talking points that have already been defeated.

---

What is God's basis for knowing suffering. When did he suffer as humans during the OT times? What are the good things that you need to know in order to live in a state of utmost happiness in heaven? If you're in heaven and know suffering, then that knowledge of suffering renders you in a lesser spiritual state or condition of happiness than without that knowledge.

---

Wow, it takes you TWO MONTHS to think about this, and this is what you produce? Your arrogance with your ignorance is truly astounding.

God's basis for knowing what suffering is, is that he's all knowing. He doesn't have to suffer as a human to know what suffering is. Your comment is baffling.

Someone who loses a loved one in a painful, suffering way will experience much, much more joy in heaven when they unite with their loved one for eternity, than someone who never lost any loved one their entire life. Pain and suffering created the void, and the filling of that void yields a larger amount of joy than if there were no void to begin with. I wouldn't call it a "lesser spiritual state" to have much, much more joy.

Pure, simple logic. Stew on that one and we'll hear back from you in another two months.

https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence?fbclid=IwAR1V8m5wzZmBfB3_nL4pNR6yf-Q8FPCzti_wZo80HfGyLMmHsRGKZXj9rAg

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

A loving God would want us to know and experience everything that is good. Without evil, pain, and suffering, we would not know and experience the good of God's justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and restoration. Also, we would not be able to know the good of empathy, love, and forgiveness of each other. Our faith could never be tested as true faith without tribulation. Good character is only built through hardship. And the experience of joy, pleasure, and happiness later in heaven and heaven on earth will be forever expanded because we knew pain and suffering first.

If, for example, a billionaire who only knew luxury his entire life, and a beggar on the street who barely eats enough to survive both were given a billion dollars - which would experience more joy? And which would love the giver of the money more? And which would have a deeper understanding of the pain and suffering in others?

---

So your god is so weak he couldn't create people, who would have that understanding, without having to suffer?

---

If God were to create people with an instant understanding of all that, then the knowledge of suffering would also be instantaneous. You won't be removing the absolute value of the suffering, you'd just be shortening the time frame. Because suffering is an integral part of the understanding. You can't have the understanding without it. You can't give a nickel to someone without giving them both sides. To say that God should just give the understanding without the suffering is saying He shouldn't give them the understanding at all.

To say that God should be powerful enough to make it so that you can have the understanding without the suffering would be paradoxical. God's omnipotence doesn't mean he can create paradoxes, i.e. He can't simultaneously destroy Himself and continue to exist. Neither does His omnipotence mean He can go against His nature, i.e. He doesn't have the power to sin. You have a poor understanding of the meaning of God's omnpotence.

---

You understand that being burned at the stake for someone's idea of heresy is horrible, without having to experience it.

---

To know that it is horrible requires a knowledge of suffering.

---

Is that why Yahweh thought it was ok to order children to be slaughtered? He doesn't know suffering? Suffering is a condition of experiencing life. Why does anyone need to suffer or understand suffering? Isn't heaven free from suffering?

---

God's knowledge of suffering was precisely why He ordered it, in order to carry out a grand plan to ultimately defeat suffering.

And as I already explained, there are good things that would not be possible to know unless we know suffering. Instead of arguing in circles, try to read the answers that people already gave before you recycle your talking points that have already been defeated.

---

What is God's basis for knowing suffering. When did he suffer as humans during the OT times? What are the good things that you need to know in order to live in a state of utmost happiness in heaven? If you're in heaven and know suffering, then that knowledge of suffering renders you in a lesser spiritual state or condition of happiness than without that knowledge.

---

Wow, it takes you TWO MONTHS to think about this, and this is what you produce? Your arrogance with your ignorance is truly astounding.

God's basis for knowing what suffering is, is that he's all knowing. He doesn't have to suffer as a human to know what suffering is. Your comment is baffling.

Someone who loses a loved one in a painful, suffering way will experience much, much more joy in heaven when they unite with their loved one for eternity, than someone who never lost any loved one their entire life. Pain and suffering created the void, and the filling of that void yields a larger amount of joy than if there were no void to begin with. I wouldn't call it a "lesser spiritual state" to have much, much more joy.

Pure, simple logic. Stew on that one and we'll hear back from you in another two months.

---

You're the one who originally said you needed to experience suffering to know suffering. I thought you claim to be made in his image. Pure, simple logic tells you when you recall a bad experience, part of that memory incorporates the pain. Heaven is supposed to be free of pain, I thought. Your god could have created you in heaven, just as happy or more so, without having to recall any suffering. And, how do you know you'll be reunited in heaven with your loved one for eternity? Oh, glad to know you missed me.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nice rant. Didn't prove anything but your temper, TS, but you got that anger up to full volume.

---

Try to address the facts instead of inventing phony deflections. Diversion and condescension doesn't help your cause.

---

Cute, but all I did was address the fact of your emotional post, TS.

And it's hypocritical for you to condescend, then claim that word when you get called on your dishonesty.

---

You're the one who started with the condescending, ad hominem attacks, and rhetorical accusations. I just responded in turn. Be honest with yourself.

---

Nope, I just called you on your behavior. You are just throwing a tantrum.

---

No, you're just being argumentative.

---

TS being TS, all about the argument, never about learning anything. Maybe you could respond to my posts which did not set you off? We are somewhat close to agreeing about Pilate, for example.

---

You don't set me off. I've come to realize you can't help yourself. We can only speculate about Pilate's perspective on the Jesus matter.

Quote:

---

You're the one who originally said you needed to experience suffering to know suffering. I thought you claim to be made in his image. Pure, simple logic tells you when you recall a bad experience, part of that memory incorporates the pain. Heaven is supposed to be free of pain, I thought. Your god could have created you in heaven, just as happy or more so, without having to recall any suffering. And, how do you know you'll be reunited in heaven with your loved one for eternity?

---

If God makes it so that your joy is eternally magnified because of the pain, then any memory of that pain is only looked on with joy, not pain.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples.

---

That seems to be an epistemological problem rather than a problem with the claims of Jesus as such. What kind of documentation, consistent with the practices of the time, would convince you of what Jesus said or did?

---

Jewish or Roman authorities. Someone like Josephus, but who was contemporaneous to Jesus timeframe, as far as what he said might give a more objective picture of what he actually said. Writing about "miracles" he did is another problem in and of itself, as far as believability. The whole question is irrelevant when considering that there are some many more obvious and convincing ways to convey the message or story without God having to depend upon the fallible nature of men to convey such a crucial and supreme message, assuming an all loving God wants to relay his message to mankind as much as possible.

---

You think historians are only qualified to write about contemporaneous people and events?

---

I wouldn't think they should be disqualified, do you? The writings we do have are not contemporaneous. A written account by Pontius Pilate would have shed a lot of light on the truth surrounding the crucifixion, if it occurred. Since you are a believer, it seems to me that Yahweh could have picked a better time, or arranged for a better or more accurate accounting and recording of Jesus life, if the objective is to produce believers, don't you? And if that is the objective, then there are a multitude of clear cut ways for such a deity to reveal itself to the world it wants to believe. Obscuring the message indicates such a being is highly unlikely, or is at least disingenuous and not serious. There simply is no objective, empirical scientific evidence for the existence of any deity.

---

Why would Pilate be more objective than Josephus?

---

I don't know that he would. Why do you think Josephus would be unqualified to have written and account?

---

I do think he was qualified. Most historians are not primary sources in themselves. The same is true of biographers, like those who presumably compiled the gospels. So I'm wondering why you think it's essential to have contemporaneous writings in this case.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples. What is written is taken from circulating oral accounts that were preserved to some degree or other. Some accounts were not preserved or completely preserved. The problem is they conflict with each other, and none are written by an eye witness, and the teachings in the early church depend upon where and who you are following. The stories conflict with each other, and many things were added later to the writings, and probably were omitted to some degree also, depending upon the writer's theology. Christianity grew from the frame of reference of the people who embraced it and wrote about it. The nature of the NT god is inconsistent with the OT god; they are not one and the same, despite attempts to portray them as the same. Your sense of right and good, and serving God's glory and will is not necessarily the same as the next man's, who is trying to follow god. That's a huge problem. The Church isn't consistent in its belief, but it is a moral lodestone, in the sense that a lodestone in the presence of a compass can produce a false direction for magnetic north, which is already in error with true north.

---

Lots of assumptions here. First: you're assuming that the accounts weren't preserved accurately, despite the importance which the Jewish culture placed on (a) oral history and (b) preservation of what they considered holy. Not to mention - the disciples were still around during this presumed period of oral transmission, so they were likely the ones doing the telling.

And second: here is a book which may interest you.

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906

Synopsis:

Jesus and the Eyewitness' argues that the four Gospels are closely based on the eyewitness testimony of those who knew Jesus. The author challenges the assumption that the accounts of Jesus circulated as 'anonymous community traditions', asserting instead that they were transmitted in the name of the original eyewitnesses. To drive home this controversial point, Bauckham draws on internal literary evidence, the use of personal names in first-century Jewish Palestine, and recent developments in the understanding of oral tradition. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses also taps into the rich resources of modern study of memory, especially in cognitive psychology, refuting the conclusions of the form critics and calling New Testament scholarship to make a clean break with this long-dominant tradition. Finally, Bauckham challenges readers to end the classic division between the 'historical Jesus' and the'Christ of faith', proposing instead the 'Jesus of testimony' as presented by the Gospels. Sure to ignite heated debate on the precise character of the testimony about Jesus, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is a groundbreaking work that will be valued by scholars, students, and all who seek to understand the origins of the Gospels.

---

I think it's pretty clear that oral tradition, especially Jewish, has no relationship to reliable accuracy or reality.

---

We'd have very little history to study if that were true.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After several years of promoting your same message …..to fundamentally the same handful of individuals……….

why are you still at it ?

Over and over ; year after year .

Certainly there must be at least one other topic that interests you .

---

Just doing my part to prevent a theocracy. Seriously, I want people to examine what and why they believe what they believe. I think it is a serious issue that spills over into politics and legislation. In the final analysis, you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I have the right (so far) to point out why that belief is in a false reality. Don't engage if you're not interested. There are plenty of other posts I make on other non-religious subjects. Check them out. I have several in the last couple of days. You and I agree on quite a number of political views, some we disagree on. I personally like you and respect your opinions, eventhough you may think I don't. Happy Holidays!

---

Thank you for the kind words....however you start more threads on religion in a couple of months than I have ever originated on any subject total during my entire time on this message board.

And that includes BFANS as well.

And for whom......the same 12-24 usual readers ?

By the way...over 22 Catholic Churches have been attacked / vandalized in Colorado alone during the last year......some repeatedly .

If there is any inherent threat in our country ...its is certainly not against atheists....or the threat of a 'theocracy' .....that is patiently absurd.

So how about a little honesty in that regard ?

---

Well, I'm just trying to stay within Treszoks three categories, politics, religion, and etc. Compared to politics, the religion category seems a little underrepresented.

It's a shame the Colorado churches were vandalized, and whoever did that should be procecuted. I doubt atheists did that, but like anything else it is possible. I bet it was for reasons other than religion. But, if you're a believer, you have to question why God would allow that, especially since many Christians claim he allowed Katrina to hit NOLA for their lifestyle.

---

Maybe believers know that God never promised anyone a life free of troubles - quite the opposite in fact.

---

So a loving god creates a world which imposes pain, suffering and tribulation, promising troubles, all for his pleasure? Why would he do that when he doesn't have to, unless he is not a loving god?

---

A loving God would want us to know and experience everything that is good. Without evil, pain, and suffering, we would not know and experience the good of God's justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and restoration. Also, we would not be able to know the good of empathy, love, and forgiveness of each other. Our faith could never be tested as true faith without tribulation. Good character is only built through hardship. And the experience of joy, pleasure, and happiness later in heaven and heaven on earth will be forever expanded because we knew pain and suffering first.

If, for example, a billionaire who only knew luxury his entire life, and a beggar on the street who barely eats enough to survive both were given a billion dollars - which would experience more joy? And which would love the giver of the money more? And which would have a deeper understanding of the pain and suffering in others?

---

So your god is so weak he couldn't create people, who would have that understanding, without having to suffer?

---

If God were to create people with an instant understanding of all that, then the knowledge of suffering would also be instantaneous. You won't be removing the absolute value of the suffering, you'd just be shortening the time frame. Because suffering is an integral part of the understanding. You can't have the understanding without it. You can't give a nickel to someone without giving them both sides. To say that God should just give the understanding without the suffering is saying He shouldn't give them the understanding at all.

To say that God should be powerful enough to make it so that you can have the understanding without the suffering would be paradoxical. God's omnipotence doesn't mean he can create paradoxes, i.e. He can't simultaneously destroy Himself and continue to exist. Neither does His omnipotence mean He can go against His nature, i.e. He doesn't have the power to sin. You have a poor understanding of the meaning of God's omnpotence.

---

You understand that being burned at the stake for someone's idea of heresy is horrible, without having to experience it.

---

To know that it is horrible requires a knowledge of suffering.

---

Is that why Yahweh thought it was ok to order children to be slaughtered? He doesn't know suffering? Suffering is a condition of experiencing life. Why does anyone need to suffer or understand suffering? Isn't heaven free from suffering?

---

God's knowledge of suffering was precisely why He ordered it, in order to carry out a grand plan to ultimately defeat suffering.

And as I already explained, there are good things that would not be possible to know unless we know suffering. Instead of arguing in circles, try to read the answers that people already gave before you recycle your talking points that have already been defeated.

---

What is God's basis for knowing suffering. When did he suffer as humans during the OT times? What are the good things that you need to know in order to live in a state of utmost happiness in heaven? If you're in heaven and know suffering, then that knowledge of suffering renders you in a lesser spiritual state or condition of happiness than without that knowledge.

---

Wow, it takes you TWO MONTHS to think about this, and this is what you produce? Your arrogance with your ignorance is truly astounding.

God's basis for knowing what suffering is, is that he's all knowing. He doesn't have to suffer as a human to know what suffering is. Your comment is baffling.

Someone who loses a loved one in a painful, suffering way will experience much, much more joy in heaven when they unite with their loved one for eternity, than someone who never lost any loved one their entire life. Pain and suffering created the void, and the filling of that void yields a larger amount of joy than if there were no void to begin with. I wouldn't call it a "lesser spiritual state" to have much, much more joy.

Pure, simple logic. Stew on that one and we'll hear back from you in another two months.

---

Heaven is supposed to be free of pain, I thought.

---

Not necessarily.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples.

---

That seems to be an epistemological problem rather than a problem with the claims of Jesus as such. What kind of documentation, consistent with the practices of the time, would convince you of what Jesus said or did?

---

Writing about "miracles" he did is another problem in and of itself, as far as believability.

---

Assuming miracles occurred, is there any way around that problem? How should the author deal with it?

TS: 'You don't set me off."

Something sure does.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: 'You don't set me off."

Something sure does.

---

Maybe I set you off.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The key point here, from what I see, is whether you are willing to accept the Gospel as Christ taught it, and by that I mean the written accounts of what Christ did and said in the Scriptural accounts.

I mean, when we hear ministers quote Christ's command to 'take up your cross and follow me', we are used to sermons about moral responsibility and personal courage, but think about the fact that Christ said this, then was actually scourged with whips and hung upon a cross until he died. Think about the fact that - except for John - all of Christ's disciples died violent deaths. When we look at the hard reality, it's scary to be a Christian.

We like to live in a world where Christians are protected from persecution, where being Christian is to have beliefs and practices which are mainstream and therefore receive no threats or trouble. But to live as a follower of Christ means to take a stand which sometimes has great personal cost, and that's made clear throughout Scripture. The prophets of the Old Testament, for example, were commonly mocked and ignored by the people, some like Jeremiah were literally thrown into wells or even killed, others were ignored unless the people and Kings happened to like what the prophet said. People who live by faith have commonly been cut out from social castes and mocked as backward and resisting progress. Even here in the United States those who live by strict Christian principles are considered weird and maybe a bit stupid, like the Quakers or the Amish.

I have tried to be a good man, a good husband and father and citizen, but on reflection I worry that too often I do what pleases my sense of right and good, rather than serving God's glory and will. Part of the purpose to the Church is to provide a moral lodestone, faithful to Scripture, so men can check their bearings and find their way.

Mocking anchors leads to shipwreck.

---

I rationalized faith that way once. The problem is we don't really know what Jesus said or did, or what actually happened to his disciples.

---

That seems to be an epistemological problem rather than a problem with the claims of Jesus as such. What kind of documentation, consistent with the practices of the time, would convince you of what Jesus said or did?

---

Writing about "miracles" he did is another problem in and of itself, as far as believability.

---

Assuming miracles occurred, is there any way around that problem? How should the author deal with it?

---

Well if there is a god, why rely on an author to communicate anything? Why not do it directly and unequivocally?