Life after church & not believing in God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whoever made the Greek analogy- it is dumb. Greek mythology is an expansive set of stories for which there is no archaeological proof. The existence of Jesus is far less tenuous than that of God’s flying around with lightning bolts.

And there is a contemporary witness to Jesus- Paul. Paul claims to have met Jesus after Jesus’ resurrection. He wrote about it extensively. So I guess if that is the proof you are looking for it exists.

Right - " Paul claims"and two thousand years later, some people use it as a reason to believe.

Believe if you want, but Paul's claim is not proof -- it is a claim - a very ancient one that cannot and hasn't been proven. It's lke an auto insurance claim that isn't accepted and paid until the adjuster sees for themselves that your fender is bent.

Maybe some people's faith is built on or bolstered by thinking that ancient claims about Jesus are factual. Maybe such people once seriously doubted their faith, but found it renewed after learning more about the historical Jesus. If so, I'd say their faith is on very shaky ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever made the Greek analogy- it is dumb. Greek mythology is an expansive set of stories for which there is no archaeological proof. The existence of Jesus is far less tenuous than that of God’s flying around with lightning bolts.

And there is a contemporary witness to Jesus- Paul. Paul claims to have met Jesus after Jesus’ resurrection. He wrote about it extensively. So I guess if that is the proof you are looking for it exists.

Right - " Paul claims"and two thousand years later, some people use it as a reason to believe.

Believe if you want, but Paul's claim is not proof -- it is a claim - a very ancient one that cannot and hasn't been proven. It's lke an auto insurance claim that isn't accepted and paid until the adjuster sees for themselves that your fender is bent.

Maybe some people's faith is built on or bolstered by thinking that ancient claims about Jesus are factual. Maybe such people once seriously doubted their faith, but found it renewed after learning more about the historical Jesus. If so, I'd say their faith is on very shaky ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever made the Greek analogy- it is dumb. Greek mythology is an expansive set of stories for which there is no archaeological proof. The existence of Jesus is far less tenuous than that of God’s flying around with lightning bolts.

And there is a contemporary witness to Jesus- Paul. Paul claims to have met Jesus after Jesus’ resurrection. He wrote about it extensively. So I guess if that is the proof you are looking for it exists.

Right - " Paul claims"and two thousand years later, some people use it as a reason to believe.

Believe if you want, but Paul's claim is not proof -- it is a claim - a very ancient one that cannot and hasn't been proven. It's lke an auto insurance claim that isn't accepted and paid until the adjuster sees for themselves that your fender is bent.

Maybe some people's faith is built on or bolstered by thinking that ancient claims about Jesus are factual. Maybe such people once seriously doubted their faith, but found it renewed after learning more about the historical Jesus. If so, I'd say their faith is on very shaky ground.

So you say you want a contemporary witness and then you call that contemporary witness a dubious claim.

Whatever. Believe what you want. But please stop pretending that you have some sort of intellectual rationale here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever made the Greek analogy- it is dumb. Greek mythology is an expansive set of stories for which there is no archaeological proof. The existence of Jesus is far less tenuous than that of God’s flying around with lightning bolts.

And there is a contemporary witness to Jesus- Paul. Paul claims to have met Jesus after Jesus’ resurrection. He wrote about it extensively. So I guess if that is the proof you are looking for it exists.

Right - " Paul claims"and two thousand years later, some people use it as a reason to believe.

Believe if you want, but Paul's claim is not proof -- it is a claim - a very ancient one that cannot and hasn't been proven. It's lke an auto insurance claim that isn't accepted and paid until the adjuster sees for themselves that your fender is bent.

Maybe some people's faith is built on or bolstered by thinking that ancient claims about Jesus are factual. Maybe such people once seriously doubted their faith, but found it renewed after learning more about the historical Jesus. If so, I'd say their faith is on very shaky ground.

So you say you want a contemporary witness and then you call that contemporary witness a dubious claim.

Whatever. Believe what you want. But please stop pretending that you have some sort of intellectual rationale here.

I'm not that poster you're responding to, but you are incorrect that Paul was a "contemporary witness to Jesus." Paul never met Jesus. He did hear voices when he had his "vision" on the road to Damascus, but we have only his word for that. It could have been the hot sun, who knows? But visions like that are the stuff of many religious experiences, that's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever made the Greek analogy- it is dumb. Greek mythology is an expansive set of stories for which there is no archaeological proof. The existence of Jesus is far less tenuous than that of God’s flying around with lightning bolts.

And there is a contemporary witness to Jesus- Paul. Paul claims to have met Jesus after Jesus’ resurrection. He wrote about it extensively. So I guess if that is the proof you are looking for it exists.

Right - " Paul claims"and two thousand years later, some people use it as a reason to believe.

Believe if you want, but Paul's claim is not proof -- it is a claim - a very ancient one that cannot and hasn't been proven. It's lke an auto insurance claim that isn't accepted and paid until the adjuster sees for themselves that your fender is bent.

Maybe some people's faith is built on or bolstered by thinking that ancient claims about Jesus are factual. Maybe such people once seriously doubted their faith, but found it renewed after learning more about the historical Jesus. If so, I'd say their faith is on very shaky ground.

So you say you want a contemporary witness and then you call that contemporary witness a dubious claim.

Whatever. Believe what you want. But please stop pretending that you have some sort of intellectual rationale here.

But that is the reason PP posted the funny video -- anything can be claimed. If you accept Paul's claim you also have to accept Joseph Smith's, L. Ron Hubbard's and every other holy book ever written. Right?

Some prefer a higher standard of proof for what they think, and don't just blindly accept the traditional beliefs they were raised in or something they like based on faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever made the Greek analogy- it is dumb. Greek mythology is an expansive set of stories for which there is no archaeological proof. The existence of Jesus is far less tenuous than that of God’s flying around with lightning bolts.

And there is a contemporary witness to Jesus- Paul. Paul claims to have met Jesus after Jesus’ resurrection. He wrote about it extensively. So I guess if that is the proof you are looking for it exists.

Right - " Paul claims"and two thousand years later, some people use it as a reason to believe.

Believe if you want, but Paul's claim is not proof -- it is a claim - a very ancient one that cannot and hasn't been proven. It's lke an auto insurance claim that isn't accepted and paid until the adjuster sees for themselves that your fender is bent.

Maybe some people's faith is built on or bolstered by thinking that ancient claims about Jesus are factual. Maybe such people once seriously doubted their faith, but found it renewed after learning more about the historical Jesus. If so, I'd say their faith is on very shaky ground.

So you say you want a contemporary witness and then you call that contemporary witness a dubious claim.

Whatever. Believe what you want. But please stop pretending that you have some sort of intellectual rationale here.

Look who's talking.!

Thanks -- I will believe what I want -- and you do the same, but please drop the intellectual rationale. Just have faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever made the Greek analogy- it is dumb. Greek mythology is an expansive set of stories for which there is no archaeological proof. The existence of Jesus is far less tenuous than that of God’s flying around with lightning bolts.

And there is a contemporary witness to Jesus- Paul. Paul claims to have met Jesus after Jesus’ resurrection. He wrote about it extensively. So I guess if that is the proof you are looking for it exists.

Right - " Paul claims"and two thousand years later, some people use it as a reason to believe.

Believe if you want, but Paul's claim is not proof -- it is a claim - a very ancient one that cannot and hasn't been proven. It's lke an auto insurance claim that isn't accepted and paid until the adjuster sees for themselves that your fender is bent.

Maybe some people's faith is built on or bolstered by thinking that ancient claims about Jesus are factual. Maybe such people once seriously doubted their faith, but found it renewed after learning more about the historical Jesus. If so, I'd say their faith is on very shaky ground.

So you say you want a contemporary witness and then you call that contemporary witness a dubious claim.

Whatever. Believe what you want. But please stop pretending that you have some sort of intellectual rationale here.

I'm not that poster you're responding to, but you are incorrect that Paul was a "contemporary witness to Jesus." Paul never met Jesus. He did hear voices when he had his "vision" on the road to Damascus, but we have only his word for that. It could have been the hot sun, who knows? But visions like that are the stuff of many religious experiences, that's all.

Or he could have been epileptic, or schizophrenic.

[Anonymous]

DP. The bottom line is that evidence from 2000+ years ago is really hard to come by. Yet the evidence for Jesus—Paul, the Gospels, Tacitus, Josephus—is pretty darn good for the era. Some of this may be contemporary, or written a few decades afterwards by people who knew Jesus. Other sources (Tacitus, Josephus) are from disinterested parties.

Atheist pp has tried to discredit all of it, but that’s a leap in itself and she’s been forced to come up with various “what ifs ” like schizophrenia.

Almost all (all?) serious scholars disagree with pp’s claim that Jesus as a person never existed. Whether you believe in his message of faith and salvation is a different matter, one of faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. The bottom line is that evidence from 2000+ years ago is really hard to come by. Yet the evidence for Jesus—Paul, the Gospels, Tacitus, Josephus—is pretty darn good for the era. Some of this may be contemporary, or written a few decades afterwards by people who knew Jesus. Other sources (Tacitus, Josephus) are from disinterested parties.

Atheist pp has tried to discredit all of it, but that’s a leap in itself and she’s been forced to come up with various “what ifs ” like schizophrenia.

Almost all (all?) serious scholars disagree with pp’s claim that Jesus as a person never existed. Whether you believe in his message of faith and salvation is a different matter, one of faith.

Who claimed that? I didn't see that on this thread at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. The bottom line is that evidence from 2000+ years ago is really hard to come by. Yet the evidence for Jesus—Paul, the Gospels, Tacitus, Josephus—is pretty darn good for the era. Some of this may be contemporary, or written a few decades afterwards by people who knew Jesus. Other sources (Tacitus, Josephus) are from disinterested parties.

Atheist pp has tried to discredit all of it, but that’s a leap in itself and she’s been forced to come up with various “what ifs ” like schizophrenia.

Almost all (all?) serious scholars disagree with pp’s claim that Jesus as a person never existed. Whether you believe in his message of faith and salvation is a different matter, one of faith.

Well there's a bit more to it than that. Without the walking on water, raising people from the dead, healing the sick and so forth with you don't have enough to build a whole religion around do you? I think that's where the difficulty arises. In those days people accepted that these miraculous events were possible and didn't bat an eye. All the nations had gods with supernatural powers. Then came the age of reason in the 17th and 18th centuries and people started believing more in evidence before believing claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. The bottom line is that evidence from 2000+ years ago is really hard to come by. Yet the evidence for Jesus—Paul, the Gospels, Tacitus, Josephus—is pretty darn good for the era. Some of this may be contemporary, or written a few decades afterwards by people who knew Jesus. Other sources (Tacitus, Josephus) are from disinterested parties.

Atheist pp has tried to discredit all of it, but that’s a leap in itself and she’s been forced to come up with various “what ifs ” like schizophrenia.

Almost all (all?) serious scholars disagree with pp’s claim that Jesus as a person never existed. Whether you believe in his message of faith and salvation is a different matter, one of faith.

Well there's a bit more to it than that. Without the walking on water, raising people from the dead, healing the sick and so forth with you don't have enough to build a whole religion around do you? I think that's where the difficulty arises. In those days people accepted that these miraculous events were possible and didn't bat an eye. All the nations had gods with supernatural powers. Then came the age of reason in the 17th and 18th centuries and people started believing more in evidence before believing claims.

You’ve got this totally backwards. The religion is built around the message of love, forgiveness, and peace. That’s what I find compelling about Christianity. The miracles are dispensable and tangential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. The bottom line is that evidence from 2000+ years ago is really hard to come by. Yet the evidence for Jesus—Paul, the Gospels, Tacitus, Josephus—is pretty darn good for the era. Some of this may be contemporary, or written a few decades afterwards by people who knew Jesus. Other sources (Tacitus, Josephus) are from disinterested parties.

Atheist pp has tried to discredit all of it, but that’s a leap in itself and she’s been forced to come up with various “what ifs ” like schizophrenia.

Almost all (all?) serious scholars disagree with pp’s claim that Jesus as a person never existed. Whether you believe in his message of faith and salvation is a different matter, one of faith.

Well there's a bit more to it than that. Without the walking on water, raising people from the dead, healing the sick and so forth with you don't have enough to build a whole religion around do you? I think that's where the difficulty arises. In those days people accepted that these miraculous events were possible and didn't bat an eye. All the nations had gods with supernatural powers. Then came the age of reason in the 17th and 18th centuries and people started believing more in evidence before believing claims.

You’ve got this totally backwards. The religion is built around the message of love, forgiveness, and peace. That’s what I find compelling about Christianity. The miracles are dispensable and tangential.

O.k., that's fair. But why do you think Jesus had the power to forgive? The Jews found this to be blasphemy, since only God has that power. It's a rather miraculous power for a human to have isn't it?

[Anonymous]

^ I can forgive you if you do something bad to me, but I can't forgive your sins. Jesus believed he could do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. The bottom line is that evidence from 2000+ years ago is really hard to come by. Yet the evidence for Jesus—Paul, the Gospels, Tacitus, Josephus—is pretty darn good for the era. Some of this may be contemporary, or written a few decades afterwards by people who knew Jesus. Other sources (Tacitus, Josephus) are from disinterested parties.

Atheist pp has tried to discredit all of it, but that’s a leap in itself and she’s been forced to come up with various “what ifs ” like schizophrenia.

Almost all (all?) serious scholars disagree with pp’s claim that Jesus as a person never existed. Whether you believe in his message of faith and salvation is a different matter, one of faith.

Well there's a bit more to it than that. Without the walking on water, raising people from the dead, healing the sick and so forth with you don't have enough to build a whole religion around do you? I think that's where the difficulty arises. In those days people accepted that these miraculous events were possible and didn't bat an eye. All the nations had gods with supernatural powers. Then came the age of reason in the 17th and 18th centuries and people started believing more in evidence before believing claims.

You’ve got this totally backwards. The religion is built around the message of love, forgiveness, and peace. That’s what I find compelling about Christianity. The miracles are dispensable and tangential.

12:12 is your basic atheist who doesn’t have a clue why people believe (it must be about the miracles not the message!) and who is on DCUM trying to slam religion for foolish reasons.

FWIW, though, there are plenty of modern-day stories about medical miracles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. The bottom line is that evidence from 2000+ years ago is really hard to come by. Yet the evidence for Jesus—Paul, the Gospels, Tacitus, Josephus—is pretty darn good for the era. Some of this may be contemporary, or written a few decades afterwards by people who knew Jesus. Other sources (Tacitus, Josephus) are from disinterested parties.

Atheist pp has tried to discredit all of it, but that’s a leap in itself and she’s been forced to come up with various “what ifs ” like schizophrenia.

Almost all (all?) serious scholars disagree with pp’s claim that Jesus as a person never existed. Whether you believe in his message of faith and salvation is a different matter, one of faith.

Well there's a bit more to it than that. Without the walking on water, raising people from the dead, healing the sick and so forth with you don't have enough to build a whole religion around do you? I think that's where the difficulty arises. In those days people accepted that these miraculous events were possible and didn't bat an eye. All the nations had gods with supernatural powers. Then came the age of reason in the 17th and 18th centuries and people started believing more in evidence before believing claims.

You’ve got this totally backwards. The religion is built around the message of love, forgiveness, and peace. That’s what I find compelling about Christianity. The miracles are dispensable and tangential.

I thought it was built on Jesus is your “get out of Hell free” card. You know, you just confess or “believe” and you’re all good. Basically built on fear.