Ask TrueReason...Religious questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2012, 03:20 PM
RE: Ask TrueReason...Religious questions
(22-08-2012 02:46 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 02:33 PM)morondog Wrote:  Why do you personally believe Christianity is true? Do you have a personal epiphany story? Does God talk to you? Do you see God acting in your life?

These are nice questions to start you off Wink Tee hee Evil_monster

There are many reasons why I believe Christianty is true, but perhaps one of most convincing to me is the historical evidence for resurrection and the witness of the apostles. I see no gain for the apostles in spreading a lie which brought them no wealth or comfort or fame. Rather they became infamous, were made poor, and were martyred for claiming to have witness the resurrected Christ.
On a personal note, I have also seen the truth of the Gospel is a living truth in the home in which I group and in the lives of the people who took hold of the love of Christ.

If that is your low standard for historical credibility, why do you not believe all the "compelling" evidence for Islam or Hinduism?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
22-08-2012, 03:38 PM
RE: Ask TrueReason...Religious questions
(22-08-2012 02:54 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  Admittedly while attending school I haven't had much time for outside reading. My experience with these comes mostly from viewing debates and reading short articles about these topics. I did start reading some of the God Delusion a while ago, but it was online and find it hard to read online books for a long period of time Tongue I realize the value in reading the books from authors of differing opinions but the best I've been able to do at this point is collect what I've heard from my interactions with atheists and test their theories with my own reasoning abilities and examining the answers apologists have to offer. My goal is not to learn what to think, but really how to think, which revolves around asking the right questions. If I fail to ask them, I'm sure atheists will ask them, and thus I am here.
Just as a disclaimer: While the videos are called "Top Ten Creationist Arguments", the arguments are by far not only used by Creationist. I think watching these would be a good start. After that, you should probably read the Wikipedia articles about the particular arguments you are using to give you a basic outline of the pro and contra aspects. Once you're done with that, I'd suggest you to do an extensive research on both sides and come to your own conclusions. Thumbsup






Seth is brilliant.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
22-08-2012, 03:50 PM
RE: Ask TrueReason...Religious questions
(22-08-2012 03:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 02:46 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  There are many reasons why I believe Christianty is true, but perhaps one of most convincing to me is the historical evidence for resurrection and the witness of the apostles. I see no gain for the apostles in spreading a lie which brought them no wealth or comfort or fame. Rather they became infamous, were made poor, and were martyred for claiming to have witness the resurrected Christ.

The gospels were written long after the the time of the alleged events by people who were not eyewitnesses. Why do you find them compelling?

Quote: On a personal note, I have also seen the truth of the Gospel is a living truth in the home in which I group and in the lives of the people who took hold of the love of Christ.

What does "the truth of the Gospel is a living truth" mean?

Actually a rather recent discovery was made of a fragment of Mark's Gospel dating to within the first century. If you look at the book of Acts, it records the history of the church up to the imprisonment of Paul in Rome. Paul's execution would've taken place circa 70 AD placing Acts before then. Luke and Acts were both written by Luke, and the gospel of Luke was written before Acts, placing it's date probably somewhere between 50-60 AD. Amongst New Testament Scholars Mark is considered the oldest of the Gospels, thus placing Mark at least at circa 50 AD, approximately only 20 years after the time of Christ. Thus I find them compelling because they would have been written during the time when people who actually witnessed these events could have confirmed or contradicted them.

The Gospel is a living truth in the sense it's message of love and hope has a daily affect on the way we live our lives.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 03:56 PM
RE: Ask TrueReason...Religious questions
(22-08-2012 03:17 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  1) How do you reconcile the Ancient Near East cultures' shared mythology? More specifically, the Akkadian's King Adapa and The Epic of Gilgamesh?

2) How do you reconcile the many inaccuracies throughout the Creation Account and the Flood Account?

3) There is an over abundance of evidence for evolution as well as evidence for common ancestry. Why do you have a hard time accepting evolution as a plan of God?

1. I don't see the need for reconciliation.
2. I don't believe there are many inaccuracies, but my answer remains the same as the one I gave you regarding inerrancy. Scientific and historical accuracy to the exactitude of modern standards was not the goal of the Genesis account nor of any part of Scripture.
3. I have a hard time accepting macro-evolution because I see little proof for it. If it could be proven, I would not have a hard time accepting it. Evolution is a scientific issue for me, not a religious one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 04:06 PM
RE: Ask TrueReason...Religious questions
(22-08-2012 03:20 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 02:46 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  There are many reasons why I believe Christianty is true, but perhaps one of most convincing to me is the historical evidence for resurrection and the witness of the apostles. I see no gain for the apostles in spreading a lie which brought them no wealth or comfort or fame. Rather they became infamous, were made poor, and were martyred for claiming to have witness the resurrected Christ.
On a personal note, I have also seen the truth of the Gospel is a living truth in the home in which I group and in the lives of the people who took hold of the love of Christ.

If that is your low standard for historical credibility, why do you not believe all the "compelling" evidence for Islam or Hinduism?
I did not go into the historical evidence for the resurrection. While the apostles martyrdom for something they claimed to witness gives it credence, that is not the historical proof I rely upon, though I believe it is a powerful one.

I do not believe in Islam or Hinduism because I have not seen any compelling evidence to lead me to such a conclusion. While people may have died in the name of Islam or Hinduism, this may have been because they were just sincerely mistaken. The apostles claimed to have seen Jesus risen from dead for 40 days after the resurrection. They either died for an unprofitable lie for which they could not have been sincerely mistaken, experienced an illusion for 40 days along with 500 other people, or died because it was truth. I think it is more likely they died because it was the truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 04:06 PM
RE: Ask TrueReason...Religious questions
(22-08-2012 03:50 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 03:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  The gospels were written long after the the time of the alleged events by people who were not eyewitnesses. Why do you find them compelling?


What does "the truth of the Gospel is a living truth" mean?

Actually a rather recent discovery was made of a fragment of Mark's Gospel dating to within the first century. If you look at the book of Acts, it records the history of the church up to the imprisonment of Paul in Rome. Paul's execution would've taken place circa 70 AD placing Acts before then. Luke and Acts were both written by Luke, and the gospel of Luke was written before Acts, placing it's date probably somewhere between 50-60 AD. Amongst New Testament Scholars Mark is considered the oldest of the Gospels, thus placing Mark at least at circa 50 AD, approximately only 20 years after the time of Christ. Thus I find them compelling because they would have been written during the time when people who actually witnessed these events could have confirmed or contradicted them.

But who would have confirmed or contradicted them? There are no attributions of sources. And why are the events in the gospels not noted by any other person whatsoever? There were many chroniclers at the time, but there is no confirming evidence.

Quote:The Gospel is a living truth in the sense it's its message of love and hope has a daily affect effect on the way we live our lives.

Improve your writing skills if you want to be taken seriously.

There are many philosophies and practices which appear to improve people's daily lives; the Gospel is not unique in that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 04:07 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2012 04:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Ask TrueReason...Religious questions
(22-08-2012 03:56 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  1. I don't see the need for reconciliation.
2. I don't believe there are many inaccuracies, but my answer remains the same as the one I gave you regarding inerrancy. Scientific and historical accuracy to the exactitude of modern standards was not the goal of the Genesis account nor of any part of Scripture.
3. I have a hard time accepting macro-evolution because I see little proof for it. If it could be proven, I would not have a hard time accepting it. Evolution is a scientific issue for me, not a religious one.

What gave you the idea that you are in any way qualified to set yourself up here, supposedly as some sort of expert, in light of the pathetic answers you just gave to the above ?
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...e+mythic+o

As I pointed out yesterday, there is as much, if not better evidence for the Salem wites being witches, as the resurrection. You did not answer. Do you plan to ? Are you able to ? You you plan on starting new threads, and running away from questions ? You have not even begun to answer the objections and questions presented to you yesterday. Are you planning on do so ? Or should we just dismiss you as a flake, coming here to feel self important, because you think you have some sort of expertise which apparently you do not ?

How many coureses in Biology have you had ?
How many courses in Evolutionary Biology have you had ?
How much Math have you had ?
How much Physics have you had ?
How many courses in Genetics have you had ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-08-2012, 04:10 PM
RE: Ask TrueReason...Religious questions
(22-08-2012 03:50 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  ....Thus I find them compelling because they would have been written during the time when people who actually witnessed these events could have confirmed or contradicted them.

The Gospel is a living truth in the sense it's message of love and hope has a daily affect on the way we live our lives.

I edited out the rest as it doesn't apply for this comment: it does assume that the bible was spread the same as it is today, people were able to read and have knowledge as we do today, and so on.

If someone said "I came from the middle east" and there was no internet, I knew no one from the middle east, and no way to prove it--I may accept it as potentially true. Back then, I doubt everyone could read (they can't now), and those that could would be the ones telling others what was going on. Whether it happened or not, the people would have no real way to know shy of accepting what others said. At the same time, if the people knew the stories were just stories (not real), why contradict them? They'd know they were false; it'd be like someone going to a movie and screaming "what's wrong with you people, this obviously didn't happen!" like during some sci-fi or end-of-the-world movie.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 04:16 PM
RE: Ask TrueReason...Religious questions
(22-08-2012 03:56 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  3. I have a hard time accepting macro-evolution because I see little proof for it. If it could be proven, I would not have a hard time accepting it. Evolution is a scientific issue for me, not a religious one.

You have not looked at the evidence. There is a mountain of evidence.
Please read, e.g.,
The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins
Why Evolution is True, Jerry A. Coyne
and so many others.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-08-2012, 04:17 PM
RE: Ask TrueReason...Religious questions
(22-08-2012 04:06 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 03:20 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If that is your low standard for historical credibility, why do you not believe all the "compelling" evidence for Islam or Hinduism?
I did not go into the historical evidence for the resurrection. While the apostles martyrdom for something they claimed to witness gives it credence, that is not the historical proof I rely upon, though I believe it is a powerful one.

I do not believe in Islam or Hinduism because I have not seen any compelling evidence to lead me to such a conclusion. While people may have died in the name of Islam or Hinduism, this may have been because they were just sincerely mistaken. The apostles claimed to have seen Jesus risen from dead for 40 days after the resurrection. They either died for an unprofitable lie for which they could not have been sincerely mistaken, experienced an illusion for 40 days along with 500 other people, or died because it was truth. I think it is more likely they died because it was the truth.

There are "eyewitness" accounts of Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, ascending on a Pegasus to heaven within the center of Mecca. How is that not the same kind of "evidence" than what is presented in the Bible?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logica Humano's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: