TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:
Answered in the post you quoted.
So you have no answer, just what I thought.
I did indeed answer.
That you keep hiding from that answer, is telling.
Why are/aren't you a Christian
10,719 Views |
192 Replies |
Last: 3 days ago by LIB,MR BEARS
I did indeed answer.
That you keep hiding from that answer, is telling.
TexasScientist said:BearWithMe said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BearWithMe said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BearWithMe said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BearWithMe said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BearWithMe said:Oldbear83 said:BearWithMe said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BearWithMe said:
I have yet to find sufficient evidence (scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or otherwise) that convincingly demonstrates the validity of Christianity's core claims.
Thanks for the honest answer.
What things about the Bible and/or about Jesus do you believe if any?
I believe the Bible is a collection of ancient texts with history, mythology/allegory, and theology/philosophy all interwoven together.
As for Jesus, I think it's almost certain he was a real historical figure, he was a Jewish man from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers and taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and some of his followers believed he rose from the dead and continued spreading his message.
There's plenty more obviously, but hopeful that helps answer at a high level.
You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead.
Also, that despite some very vigorous efforts by Jewish and Roman authorities to suppress and wipe out the believers, the Church survived, thrived and in the end is still here long after its persecutors passed on.
Quite the historic anomaly.
We have very few early sources for the disciples' martyrdoms and none being contemporary.
Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. Acts records the execution of James son of Zebedee, though its dating is debated.
Most of what people think about how specific apostles died comes from Eusebius and apocryphal texts written centuries later.
Just as there is no contradictory record of the empty tomb, there is no contradictory record of the martyrdom of the apostles.
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/
Thank you for sharing the article. I read through it and its core argument is essentially: early Christian tradition says they died as martyrs, no ancient source contradicts it, therefore it's reliable. But that reasoning has a few problems - I'll try to respond to each of its three points made.
First, it leans on Acts as evidence the disciples were headed toward martyrdom. The issue is that Acts is a Christian document written by someone already committed to the faith (unlike some of the sources in my OP), so it's not an independent external source. Using it to validate claims made by that same belief system is circular.
Second, it argues the martyrdom tradition is uniform with no contradictory ancient record. But absence of contradiction isn't evidence something happened, that's an argument from silence. Given how little was documented about minor figures in a small 1st century sect, it's honestly just what you'd expect, regardless of what happened.
Third, it points to later Christians dying for their faith as corroboration of the original accounts. But those people were dying for their belief in the apostolic testimony, not because they had independent knowledge of what happened. This only tells us the tradition spread, not that it's true.
First, evidence includes Josephus documenting James' execution (AD 62), and writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp (late 1st/early 2nd century) confirming the violent deaths of Peter and Paul. This is not circular reasoning.
Second, Numerous non-biblical, early Christian, and secular writings from the late 1st to 2nd centuries mention the apostles, particularly Peter, Paul, and John. Key sources include the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias) and Roman historians like Tacitus, who corroborate the apostles' ministry, leadership, and martyrdom
They were more than minor figures in their time, especially for the Romans and Jews wanting to stop the growth of the church. Not only was there plenty of opportunity to write contradictory accounts, there was plenty of reason to write contradictory accounts and yet, there are none.
Third, that's true for anyone a generation or more after the contemporaries die. However, if there was evidence to the contrary that the apostles did not die as martyrs there is a strong likelihood that would have been presented to get the later Christians to recant.
Genuine question: did you read the post you originally responded to lol? I mentioned most of these sources already:
"Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. …."
These are certainly better than acts, but are still not contemporary.
We will just have to agree to disagree on the missing contradictory accounts portion.
You want a dated Jerusalem Post article. 30 years is extremely close for a historical account during that timeframe. EXTREMELY CLOSE
My point was simply that we don't have any contemporary sources, with the vast majority coming a century or more later from Christian sources.
I think it's plausible, if not likely, that a handful of early Christians were martyrs, but I'm not convinced in the church tradition that most of the 12 were martyrs.
How many of the eyewitnesses need to be martyred to make a convincing argument, 2, 6, more?
J Warner Wallace, a cold case detective used the same analytical tools he uses for murder cases to looked at the death and resurrection of Christ. He describes the evidence as being "death by 1000 cuts"-so many small things all pointing the same direction. He says the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
His book, Cold Case Christianity, addresses many of the arguments made in this thread
As I stated earlier, I don't believe most of the 12 were martyred outside James, and maybe Peter. I'm only being more defensive as your original claim was:
"You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead."
I have read Cold Case Christianity actually, as well as about two dozen other apologetic books and counter apologetic books. Was not a fan of Wallace personally.Quote:
"You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead."
These are simply stories (written years later) written by people who have a theoligical reason to promote the idea of martyrdom. The fact is there is no contemporaneous objective independent sources confirming. Which begs the question, if there is an all knowing, powerful, supernatural god who wants to spread the "good news" message he charged fallible mere mortals with spreading, are there not much more convincing ways to reveal himself and achieve his goals. IF the goal is to convert nonbelievers, he's failing badly and isn't very smart about it. If any one of them were truly martyrs, it doesn't validate the belief, but simply confirms they were extremely gullible. People die all the time for misplaced beliefs. Islam is full of martyrs looking for their 72 virgin goats.
This isn't about people becoming martyrs for their beliefs but martyrs for what they know to be a lie. Of course you already knew this.
What is your empirical evidence that Christianity is false?
LIB,MR BEARS said:TexasScientist said:BearWithMe said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BearWithMe said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BearWithMe said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BearWithMe said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BearWithMe said:Oldbear83 said:BearWithMe said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BearWithMe said:
I have yet to find sufficient evidence (scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or otherwise) that convincingly demonstrates the validity of Christianity's core claims.
Thanks for the honest answer.
What things about the Bible and/or about Jesus do you believe if any?
I believe the Bible is a collection of ancient texts with history, mythology/allegory, and theology/philosophy all interwoven together.
As for Jesus, I think it's almost certain he was a real historical figure, he was a Jewish man from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers and taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and some of his followers believed he rose from the dead and continued spreading his message.
There's plenty more obviously, but hopeful that helps answer at a high level.
You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead.
Also, that despite some very vigorous efforts by Jewish and Roman authorities to suppress and wipe out the believers, the Church survived, thrived and in the end is still here long after its persecutors passed on.
Quite the historic anomaly.
We have very few early sources for the disciples' martyrdoms and none being contemporary.
Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. Acts records the execution of James son of Zebedee, though its dating is debated.
Most of what people think about how specific apostles died comes from Eusebius and apocryphal texts written centuries later.
Just as there is no contradictory record of the empty tomb, there is no contradictory record of the martyrdom of the apostles.
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/
Thank you for sharing the article. I read through it and its core argument is essentially: early Christian tradition says they died as martyrs, no ancient source contradicts it, therefore it's reliable. But that reasoning has a few problems - I'll try to respond to each of its three points made.
First, it leans on Acts as evidence the disciples were headed toward martyrdom. The issue is that Acts is a Christian document written by someone already committed to the faith (unlike some of the sources in my OP), so it's not an independent external source. Using it to validate claims made by that same belief system is circular.
Second, it argues the martyrdom tradition is uniform with no contradictory ancient record. But absence of contradiction isn't evidence something happened, that's an argument from silence. Given how little was documented about minor figures in a small 1st century sect, it's honestly just what you'd expect, regardless of what happened.
Third, it points to later Christians dying for their faith as corroboration of the original accounts. But those people were dying for their belief in the apostolic testimony, not because they had independent knowledge of what happened. This only tells us the tradition spread, not that it's true.
First, evidence includes Josephus documenting James' execution (AD 62), and writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp (late 1st/early 2nd century) confirming the violent deaths of Peter and Paul. This is not circular reasoning.
Second, Numerous non-biblical, early Christian, and secular writings from the late 1st to 2nd centuries mention the apostles, particularly Peter, Paul, and John. Key sources include the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias) and Roman historians like Tacitus, who corroborate the apostles' ministry, leadership, and martyrdom
They were more than minor figures in their time, especially for the Romans and Jews wanting to stop the growth of the church. Not only was there plenty of opportunity to write contradictory accounts, there was plenty of reason to write contradictory accounts and yet, there are none.
Third, that's true for anyone a generation or more after the contemporaries die. However, if there was evidence to the contrary that the apostles did not die as martyrs there is a strong likelihood that would have been presented to get the later Christians to recant.
Genuine question: did you read the post you originally responded to lol? I mentioned most of these sources already:
"Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. …."
These are certainly better than acts, but are still not contemporary.
We will just have to agree to disagree on the missing contradictory accounts portion.
You want a dated Jerusalem Post article. 30 years is extremely close for a historical account during that timeframe. EXTREMELY CLOSE
My point was simply that we don't have any contemporary sources, with the vast majority coming a century or more later from Christian sources.
I think it's plausible, if not likely, that a handful of early Christians were martyrs, but I'm not convinced in the church tradition that most of the 12 were martyrs.
How many of the eyewitnesses need to be martyred to make a convincing argument, 2, 6, more?
J Warner Wallace, a cold case detective used the same analytical tools he uses for murder cases to looked at the death and resurrection of Christ. He describes the evidence as being "death by 1000 cuts"-so many small things all pointing the same direction. He says the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
His book, Cold Case Christianity, addresses many of the arguments made in this thread
As I stated earlier, I don't believe most of the 12 were martyred outside James, and maybe Peter. I'm only being more defensive as your original claim was:
"You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead."
I have read Cold Case Christianity actually, as well as about two dozen other apologetic books and counter apologetic books. Was not a fan of Wallace personally.Quote:
"You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead."
These are simply stories (written years later) written by people who have a theoligical reason to promote the idea of martyrdom. The fact is there is no contemporaneous objective independent sources confirming. Which begs the question, if there is an all knowing, powerful, supernatural god who wants to spread the "good news" message he charged fallible mere mortals with spreading, are there not much more convincing ways to reveal himself and achieve his goals. IF the goal is to convert nonbelievers, he's failing badly and isn't very smart about it. If any one of them were truly martyrs, it doesn't validate the belief, but simply confirms they were extremely gullible. People die all the time for misplaced beliefs. Islam is full of martyrs looking for their 72 virgin goats.
This isn't about people becoming martyrs for their beliefs but martyrs for what they know to be a lie. Of course you already knew this.
What is your empirical evidence that Christianity is false?
They don't have to believe it is a lie, although they could. People can convince themselves of anything about the supernatural. Outside of some indication of persecution by Nero, the idea of widespread martyrdom is not supported and is even overstated by Christian lore and legend.
Intercessory prayer.
" some indication of persecution by Nero"
That's like saying the Nazis showed some level of disapproval of the Jews.
That's like saying the Nazis showed some level of disapproval of the Jews.
Oldbear83 said:
" some indication of persecution by Nero"
That's like saying the Nazis showed some level of disapproval of the Jews.
If I'm on the path he's on I'm afraid of where the evidence leads as well
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
You make a fundamental mistake.
Evidence is a humanist quality. To require evidence means to abandon faith; you can either believe because of faith or believe because empirical data convinces you. But the empirical evidence is a physical quality only, and so lacks efficacy in quality of life and relationship decisions.
Claims of empirical fact require physical evidence. Faith is built along different lines, as is the produce of faith.
Truth may be found without a laboratory, people have done so for thousands of years.
LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
John 6:65
And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
John 6:37
All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
JOHN 10:27
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."
ROMANS 8:30
"And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified."
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
John 6:65
And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
John 6:37
All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
JOHN 10:27
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."
ROMANS 8:30
"And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified."
quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
I suppose that statement rings true even if an individual is their own god, trusting in their own mind, their own heart.
1 Corinthians 1:19-31
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised thingsand the things that are notto nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from Godthat is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord."[d]
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised thingsand the things that are notto nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from Godthat is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord."[d]
LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
I suppose that statement rings true even if an individual is their own god, trusting in their own mind, their own heart.
Trusting in reason.
I do not understand the compulsion of believers to tell someone who doesn't believe in gods that they are their own god. I don't worship myself, haven't performed any miracles,, never authored holy writ, never did anything to match the faith claims of believers. Don't want to.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
but you do.. you place yourself above God. You place your ability above His, your comfort above His calling, your desire to please you over your desire to please Him.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
I suppose that statement rings true even if an individual is their own god, trusting in their own mind, their own heart.
Trusting in reason.
I do not understand the compulsion of believers to tell someone who doesn't believe in gods that they are their own god. I don't worship myself, haven't performed any miracles,, never authored holy writ, never did anything to match the faith claims of believers. Don't want to.
You placed you before Him, thats idolatry worship of self.
Christians who are called want everybody to come to Christ. Especailly those who are early in their walk and havent read enough scripture. Not all are called to Christ by the Father.
If you dont feel compelled to come to Jesus or you don't feel convicted for turning away from Jesus, then you have not been called by the Father.
4th and Inches said:TexasScientist said:4th and Inches said:TexasScientist said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
Not proof but, amazing evidence
He got part of it right. Many people had a hand in eventually compiling a written text. The part about not contradictions, and other statements are patently false and shows his ignorance.
Lib,
2 Corinthians 4:4
4:4 is contradictory to the whole Christian premiss of presenting a 'good news' message to convert the world.
except its not.. you have to read scripture and pray to Jesus for understanding and it will come to you.
If you would like more then I will be happy to engage further. If you want to continue to deny and rebuke then I offer you to have a blessed day.
I will and I am sure others will continue to pray for your salvation whether you chose it or not.
Religion = self deception - I've already been there and done that.
Oldbear83 said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
You make a fundamental mistake.
Evidence is a humanist quality. To require evidence means to abandon faith; you can either believe because of faith or believe because empirical data convinces you. But the empirical evidence is a physical quality only, and so lacks efficacy in quality of life and relationship decisions.
Claims of empirical fact require physical evidence. Faith is built along different lines, as is the produce of faith.
Truth may be found without a laboratory, people have done so for thousands of years.
Faith requires belief without evidence. The desire for immortality without evidence is a psychological force.
TS: " self deception - I've already been there and done that."
Quoted to show you outed yourself, TS.
Quoted to show you outed yourself, TS.
anybody who walks away was never in the spirit to begin with..Oldbear83 said:
TS: " self deception - I've already been there and done that."
Quoted to show you outed yourself, TS.
Nobody walks away from being in the spirit.
Can you further explain what you mean by "not all are called to Christ by the Father"?4th and Inches said:but you do.. you place yourself above God. You place your ability above His, your comfort above His calling, your desire to please you over your desire to please Him.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
I suppose that statement rings true even if an individual is their own god, trusting in their own mind, their own heart.
Trusting in reason.
I do not understand the compulsion of believers to tell someone who doesn't believe in gods that they are their own god. I don't worship myself, haven't performed any miracles,, never authored holy writ, never did anything to match the faith claims of believers. Don't want to.
You placed you before Him, thats idolatry worship of self.
Christians who are called want everybody to come to Christ. Especailly those who are early in their walk and havent read enough scripture. Not all are called to Christ by the Father.
If you dont feel compelled to come to Jesus or you don't feel convicted for turning away from Jesus, then you have not been called by the Father.
Are you referring to an inward, effectual call?
Jesus explains that no man can come unless the Father draws him (John 6:65). The natural man has no ability to come to God, nor does he even have the desire to come. Because his heart is hard and his mind is darkened, the unregenerate person doesn't desire God and is actually an enemy of God (Romans 5:10).BearWithMe said:Can you further explain what you mean by "not all are called to Christ by the Father"?4th and Inches said:but you do.. you place yourself above God. You place your ability above His, your comfort above His calling, your desire to please you over your desire to please Him.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
I suppose that statement rings true even if an individual is their own god, trusting in their own mind, their own heart.
Trusting in reason.
I do not understand the compulsion of believers to tell someone who doesn't believe in gods that they are their own god. I don't worship myself, haven't performed any miracles,, never authored holy writ, never did anything to match the faith claims of believers. Don't want to.
You placed you before Him, thats idolatry worship of self.
Christians who are called want everybody to come to Christ. Especailly those who are early in their walk and havent read enough scripture. Not all are called to Christ by the Father.
If you dont feel compelled to come to Jesus or you don't feel convicted for turning away from Jesus, then you have not been called by the Father.
Are you referring to an inward, effectual call?
When Jesus says that no man can come without God's drawing him, He is making a statement about the total depravity of the sinner and the universality of that condition. So darkened is the unsaved person's heart that he doesn't even realize it: "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).
Therefore, it is only by the merciful and gracious drawing of God that we are saved. In the conversion of the sinner, God enlightens the mind (Ephesians 1:18), inclines the will toward Himself, and influences the soul, without which influence the soul remains darkened and rebellious against God. All of this is involved in the drawing process.
There are tangible ways in which those who are being drawn(called) to salvation experience that drawing. First, the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sinful state and our need for a Savior (John 16:8). Second, He awakens in us a previously unknown interest in spiritual things and creates a desire for them that was never there before.
Suddenly our ears are open, our hearts are inclined toward Him, and His Word begins to hold a new and exciting fascination for us. Our spirits begin to discern spiritual truth that never made sense to us before: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Finally, we begin to have new desires. He places within us a new heart that inclines toward Him, a heart that desires to know Him, obey Him, and walk in the "newness of life" (Romans 6:4) that He has promised.
4th and Inches said:Jesus explains that no man can come unless the Father draws him (John 6:65). The natural man has no ability to come to God, nor does he even have the desire to come. Because his heart is hard and his mind is darkened, the unregenerate person doesn't desire God and is actually an enemy of God (Romans 5:10).BearWithMe said:Can you further explain what you mean by "not all are called to Christ by the Father"?4th and Inches said:but you do.. you place yourself above God. You place your ability above His, your comfort above His calling, your desire to please you over your desire to please Him.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
I suppose that statement rings true even if an individual is their own god, trusting in their own mind, their own heart.
Trusting in reason.
I do not understand the compulsion of believers to tell someone who doesn't believe in gods that they are their own god. I don't worship myself, haven't performed any miracles,, never authored holy writ, never did anything to match the faith claims of believers. Don't want to.
You placed you before Him, thats idolatry worship of self.
Christians who are called want everybody to come to Christ. Especailly those who are early in their walk and havent read enough scripture. Not all are called to Christ by the Father.
If you dont feel compelled to come to Jesus or you don't feel convicted for turning away from Jesus, then you have not been called by the Father.
Are you referring to an inward, effectual call?
When Jesus says that no man can come without God's drawing him, He is making a statement about the total depravity of the sinner and the universality of that condition. So darkened is the unsaved person's heart that he doesn't even realize it: "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).
Therefore, it is only by the merciful and gracious drawing of God that we are saved. In the conversion of the sinner, God enlightens the mind (Ephesians 1:18), inclines the will toward Himself, and influences the soul, without which influence the soul remains darkened and rebellious against God. All of this is involved in the drawing process.
There are tangible ways in which those who are being drawn(called) to salvation experience that drawing. First, the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sinful state and our need for a Savior (John 16:8). Second, He awakens in us a previously unknown interest in spiritual things and creates a desire for them that was never there before.
Suddenly our ears are open, our hearts are inclined toward Him, and His Word begins to hold a new and exciting fascination for us. Our spirits begin to discern spiritual truth that never made sense to us before: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Finally, we begin to have new desires. He places within us a new heart that inclines toward Him, a heart that desires to know Him, obey Him, and walk in the "newness of life" (Romans 6:4) that He has promised.
Sermon outline?
All religions are, "Man reaching up tp God".
Only Christianity is "God reaching down to Man"
Only Christianity is "God reaching down to Man"
Oldbear83 said:
TS: " self deception - I've already been there and done that."
Quoted to show you outed yourself, TS.
Anyone, including you, who has been a believer has been there or is there. I don't hide that I was as gullible as you.
4yrletterbear said:
All religions are, "Man reaching up tp God".
Only Christianity is "God reaching down to Man"
Upon examination, Christianity is no different.
4th and Inches said:BearWithMe said:4th and Inches said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
I suppose that statement rings true even if an individual is their own god, trusting in their own mind, their own heart.
Trusting in reason.
I do not understand the compulsion of believers to tell someone who doesn't believe in gods that they are their own god. I don't worship myself, haven't performed any miracles,, never authored holy writ, never did anything to match the faith claims of believers. Don't want to.
but you do.. you place yourself above God. You place your ability above His, your comfort above His calling, your desire to please you over your desire to please Him.
You placed you before Him, thats idolatry worship of self.
Christians who are called want everybody to come to Christ. Especailly those who are early in their walk and havent read enough scripture. Not all are called to Christ by the Father.
If you dont feel compelled to come to Jesus or you don't feel convicted for turning away from Jesus, then you have not been called by the Father.
Can you further explain what you mean by "not all are called to Christ by the Father"?
Are you referring to an inward, effectual call?
Jesus explains that no man can come unless the Father draws him (John 6:65). The natural man has no ability to come to God, nor does he even have the desire to come. Because his heart is hard and his mind is darkened, the unregenerate person doesn't desire God and is actually an enemy of God (Romans 5:10).
When Jesus says that no man can come without God's drawing him, He is making a statement about the total depravity of the sinner and the universality of that condition. So darkened is the unsaved person's heart that he doesn't even realize it: "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).
Therefore, it is only by the merciful and gracious drawing of God that we are saved. In the conversion of the sinner, God enlightens the mind (Ephesians 1:18), inclines the will toward Himself, and influences the soul, without which influence the soul remains darkened and rebellious against God. All of this is involved in the drawing process.
There are tangible ways in which those who are being drawn(called) to salvation experience that drawing. First, the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sinful state and our need for a Savior (John 16:8). Second, He awakens in us a previously unknown interest in spiritual things and creates a desire for them that was never there before.
Suddenly our ears are open, our hearts are inclined toward Him, and His Word begins to hold a new and exciting fascination for us. Our spirits begin to discern spiritual truth that never made sense to us before: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Finally, we begin to have new desires. He places within us a new heart that inclines toward Him, a heart that desires to know Him, obey Him, and walk in the "newness of life" (Romans 6:4) that He has promised.
Psychosis.
Matthew 5:11-12TexasScientist said:4th and Inches said:BearWithMe said:4th and Inches said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
I suppose that statement rings true even if an individual is their own god, trusting in their own mind, their own heart.
Trusting in reason.
I do not understand the compulsion of believers to tell someone who doesn't believe in gods that they are their own god. I don't worship myself, haven't performed any miracles,, never authored holy writ, never did anything to match the faith claims of believers. Don't want to.
but you do.. you place yourself above God. You place your ability above His, your comfort above His calling, your desire to please you over your desire to please Him.
You placed you before Him, thats idolatry worship of self.
Christians who are called want everybody to come to Christ. Especailly those who are early in their walk and havent read enough scripture. Not all are called to Christ by the Father.
If you dont feel compelled to come to Jesus or you don't feel convicted for turning away from Jesus, then you have not been called by the Father.
Can you further explain what you mean by "not all are called to Christ by the Father"?
Are you referring to an inward, effectual call?
Jesus explains that no man can come unless the Father draws him (John 6:65). The natural man has no ability to come to God, nor does he even have the desire to come. Because his heart is hard and his mind is darkened, the unregenerate person doesn't desire God and is actually an enemy of God (Romans 5:10).
When Jesus says that no man can come without God's drawing him, He is making a statement about the total depravity of the sinner and the universality of that condition. So darkened is the unsaved person's heart that he doesn't even realize it: "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).
Therefore, it is only by the merciful and gracious drawing of God that we are saved. In the conversion of the sinner, God enlightens the mind (Ephesians 1:18), inclines the will toward Himself, and influences the soul, without which influence the soul remains darkened and rebellious against God. All of this is involved in the drawing process.
There are tangible ways in which those who are being drawn(called) to salvation experience that drawing. First, the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sinful state and our need for a Savior (John 16:8). Second, He awakens in us a previously unknown interest in spiritual things and creates a desire for them that was never there before.
Suddenly our ears are open, our hearts are inclined toward Him, and His Word begins to hold a new and exciting fascination for us. Our spirits begin to discern spiritual truth that never made sense to us before: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Finally, we begin to have new desires. He places within us a new heart that inclines toward Him, a heart that desires to know Him, obey Him, and walk in the "newness of life" (Romans 6:4) that He has promised.
Psychosis.
4th and Inches said:but you do.. you place yourself above God. You place your ability above His, your comfort above His calling, your desire to please you over your desire to please Him.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
I suppose that statement rings true even if an individual is their own god, trusting in their own mind, their own heart.
Trusting in reason.
I do not understand the compulsion of believers to tell someone who doesn't believe in gods that they are their own god. I don't worship myself, haven't performed any miracles,, never authored holy writ, never did anything to match the faith claims of believers. Don't want to.
You placed you before Him, thats idolatry worship of self.
Christians who are called want everybody to come to Christ. Especailly those who are early in their walk and havent read enough scripture. Not all are called to Christ by the Father.
If you dont feel compelled to come to Jesus or you don't feel convicted for turning away from Jesus, then you have not been called by the Father.
Keep trying to convince yourself that someone who doesn't believe in gods thinks he's a god.
You won't convince me. Seems like a lousy witness, too, but you dontou
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
4th and Inches said:anybody who walks away was never in the spirit to begin with..Oldbear83 said:
TS: " self deception - I've already been there and done that."
Quoted to show you outed yourself, TS.
Nobody walks away from being in the spirit.
No True Scotsman fallacy
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash said:4th and Inches said:but you do.. you place yourself above God. You place your ability above His, your comfort above His calling, your desire to please you over your desire to please Him.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
I suppose that statement rings true even if an individual is their own god, trusting in their own mind, their own heart.
Trusting in reason.
I do not understand the compulsion of believers to tell someone who doesn't believe in gods that they are their own god. I don't worship myself, haven't performed any miracles,, never authored holy writ, never did anything to match the faith claims of believers. Don't want to.
You placed you before Him, thats idolatry worship of self.
Christians who are called want everybody to come to Christ. Especailly those who are early in their walk and havent read enough scripture. Not all are called to Christ by the Father.
If you dont feel compelled to come to Jesus or you don't feel convicted for turning away from Jesus, then you have not been called by the Father.
Keep trying to convince yourself that someone who doesn't believe in gods thinks he's a god.
You won't convince me. Seems like a lousy witness, too, but you dontou
People don't call money their god but you and I both know they absolutely live that way.
People don't call self their god but you and I both know they absolutely live that way.
Whether you believe in god(s) or not, your personal testimony is much more revealing.
I understand I wont convice you, it was never about convincing you.. that isnt what I am called to do. I am called to plant seeds and pray for rain.quash said:4th and Inches said:but you do.. you place yourself above God. You place your ability above His, your comfort above His calling, your desire to please you over your desire to please Him.quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
I suppose that statement rings true even if an individual is their own god, trusting in their own mind, their own heart.
Trusting in reason.
I do not understand the compulsion of believers to tell someone who doesn't believe in gods that they are their own god. I don't worship myself, haven't performed any miracles,, never authored holy writ, never did anything to match the faith claims of believers. Don't want to.
You placed you before Him, thats idolatry worship of self.
Christians who are called want everybody to come to Christ. Especailly those who are early in their walk and havent read enough scripture. Not all are called to Christ by the Father.
If you dont feel compelled to come to Jesus or you don't feel convicted for turning away from Jesus, then you have not been called by the Father.
Keep trying to convince yourself that someone who doesn't believe in gods thinks he's a god.
You won't convince me. Seems like a lousy witness, too, but you dontou
Enjoy your weekend!
John 10:29 "My Father who gave them to me is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch anything from my Father's hand."quash said:4th and Inches said:anybody who walks away was never in the spirit to begin with..Oldbear83 said:
TS: " self deception - I've already been there and done that."
Quoted to show you outed yourself, TS.
Nobody walks away from being in the spirit.
No True Scotsman fallacy
It is clearly written for those that can hear and see
TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:
TS: " self deception - I've already been there and done that."
Quoted to show you outed yourself, TS.
Anyone, including you, who has been a believer has been there or is there. I don't hide that I was as gullible as you.
And there it is again. You do not accept the value of faith, so you reject it. It escapes you that people who live in faith have fond something you missed.
I understand your mistake. You believe putting a man-made concept, Science, above everything else is objective and not its own decision of fealty. You ignore the inherent flaws because just as some choose to serve God, and others a different god, you have chosen your own god but imagine the definition is different because you want to say so.
4th and Inches said:TexasScientist said:4th and Inches said:BearWithMe said:4th and Inches said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:
Christianity, like every other god-based religion fails the evidence test. The claim of a god is insufficiently supported.
I have no problem with faith claims, you can believe whatever you like
But truth claims require support.
In this instance, do you see a difference between proof and evidence?
What type of evidence would you require?
How much evidence would you require?
A god knows what evidence would convince me. Such a god has failed to produce such evidence
I suppose that statement rings true even if an individual is their own god, trusting in their own mind, their own heart.
Trusting in reason.
I do not understand the compulsion of believers to tell someone who doesn't believe in gods that they are their own god. I don't worship myself, haven't performed any miracles,, never authored holy writ, never did anything to match the faith claims of believers. Don't want to.
but you do.. you place yourself above God. You place your ability above His, your comfort above His calling, your desire to please you over your desire to please Him.
You placed you before Him, thats idolatry worship of self.
Christians who are called want everybody to come to Christ. Especailly those who are early in their walk and havent read enough scripture. Not all are called to Christ by the Father.
If you dont feel compelled to come to Jesus or you don't feel convicted for turning away from Jesus, then you have not been called by the Father.
Can you further explain what you mean by "not all are called to Christ by the Father"?
Are you referring to an inward, effectual call?
Jesus explains that no man can come unless the Father draws him (John 6:65). The natural man has no ability to come to God, nor does he even have the desire to come. Because his heart is hard and his mind is darkened, the unregenerate person doesn't desire God and is actually an enemy of God (Romans 5:10).
When Jesus says that no man can come without God's drawing him, He is making a statement about the total depravity of the sinner and the universality of that condition. So darkened is the unsaved person's heart that he doesn't even realize it: "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).
Therefore, it is only by the merciful and gracious drawing of God that we are saved. In the conversion of the sinner, God enlightens the mind (Ephesians 1:18), inclines the will toward Himself, and influences the soul, without which influence the soul remains darkened and rebellious against God. All of this is involved in the drawing process.
There are tangible ways in which those who are being drawn(called) to salvation experience that drawing. First, the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sinful state and our need for a Savior (John 16:8). Second, He awakens in us a previously unknown interest in spiritual things and creates a desire for them that was never there before.
Suddenly our ears are open, our hearts are inclined toward Him, and His Word begins to hold a new and exciting fascination for us. Our spirits begin to discern spiritual truth that never made sense to us before: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Finally, we begin to have new desires. He places within us a new heart that inclines toward Him, a heart that desires to know Him, obey Him, and walk in the "newness of life" (Romans 6:4) that He has promised.
Psychosis.
Matthew 5:11-12
No offense, but 5:11-12 is religious psychosis.
Oldbear83 said:TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:
TS: " self deception - I've already been there and done that."
Quoted to show you outed yourself, TS.
Anyone, including you, who has been a believer has been there or is there. I don't hide that I was as gullible as you.
And there it is again. You do not accept the value of faith, so you reject it. It escapes you that people who live in faith have fond something you missed.
I understand your mistake. You believe putting a man-made concept, Science, above everything else is objective and not its own decision of fealty. You ignore the inherent flaws because just as some choose to serve God, and others a different god, you have chosen your own god but imagine the definition is different because you want to say so.
I haven't 'missed' something. I have simply chosen to base my worldview on what can be verified by everyone, rather than what is felt by a few. Faith is belief without evidence and relies on dogma. Science is a process of learning, correcting, and tests for falsification. From that process science makes reliable predicitions and draws reliable conclusions about reality.
Science works whether you believe in it or not, whereas faith requires a committment without evidence. Religion is a set of fixed beliefs held regardless of evidence, while science is a tool used to discard beliefs that fail to match reality. Science is the only method we have that is self-correcting. If a scientific 'god' is proven wrong today, we update the textbooks tomorrow. The same can't be said for faith.
Reagan’s atheism joke👇 pic.twitter.com/GAPX3UMxPt
— sᥕᥱᥱ𝗍 𝗍һіᥒg❤️🔥(𝙰𝚜𝚒𝚊) (@55SweetThing) May 6, 2026