Poll: What's Jesus about?
Son of God, etc
Lowly preacher bigged up
Total myth, never existed
Based on real people and events to create a religion
King Arthur
[Show Results]
 
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2014, 07:43 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 07:31 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 06:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  my point is that when an atheist who thinks like you tells a Christian that there is no evidence for God and that is why they do not believe in Him, the Christian can simply reply by saying: "So what?" If I bothered to give you the evidence, you would not ask God to be born again and repent of your sins. A Christian could care less if you acknowledge God's existence as a mere fact. The demons acknowledge His existence and tremble. And many acknowledge His existence and hate Him.

When a Christian talks with an atheist and gives them arguments and or reasons why God exists it is with the aim of leading that person to the point where they see their desperate need for God and their hopeless state so that they will repent and confess their sins and be forgiven. It is not so that the person can say: "Ok God exists."
What you are failing to see is that nothing you say makes any sense unless you assume your god exists. You make that assumption so, to you, things you are saying make sense (although, to me, even with that assumption they don't make sense, but that's another conversation). But to those of us who don't make that assumption, the question of existence is key to anything else about your god.

(03-05-2014 06:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  As I stated, I could care less whether or not you agree that the proposition "God exists" is true. You can believe the proposition and align yourself positively against God. I do what I do because I desire to see people receive the light and illumination of Christ in their heart and mind so that they may be saved, not so that people can say "God exists" and then go their merry way as slaves to sin.
Actually, you do what you do because you skipped right over the question of your god's existence without giving it any thought whatsoever and moved right onto "he exists and therefore..." I can see from your replies here that you aren't the slightest bit interested in or open-minded about reasoning or evidence that contradicts your view.

God's existence is key to the question of God's existence, not to the question of one's disposition towards God granting He existed.

When asked for evidence of God's existence, I weed out the insincere questioner by asking him what his response would be if indeed he was given evidence he felt was sufficient to prove God existed. If said person admits they would do nothing with the evidence, I do not waste my time in presenting it. If someone asks me for ten dollars and in order to discern if I should give it to them I ask what they would do with and they said they would do nothing with it then I will not give them the ten dollars.

The majority of atheists I have spoken with admit they would do nothing with the evidence but continue on living the way they are living. So in those cases, I simply bid them farewell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 07:48 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 07:36 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 07:25 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Morality is defined by people,...... those who can tell right from wrong and choose their behavior according to their own morality,

You do not believe what you just wrote.

You do not believe morality is defined by people, if so, then you would have to agree that everything anyone has ever done was moral, but clearly you do not agree with that for you think Christians are immoral followers of an immoral fictitious character in a book.

If you really thought morality i.e what was right and what was wrong was defined by the individual, then you cannot denounce the Nazis for doing anything wrong because they thought they were doing what was right.

You cannot denounce Christians for anything they do, or anyone else for that matter.

You have failed.

You really, really need to stop telling us what we do and do not believe. Your arrogance and stupidity are colossal.

We derive morality by reason and emotion. The 'lawgiver' is us.

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
03-05-2014, 07:48 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 07:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 03:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Since we are not talking about God's existence, I shall dismiss the above as moot.

Rather we are talking about your disposition towards Him granting His existence. It is clear you would actively oppose Him and all that He stands for, for these were your own words, not mine.

So once again, why would you ask a Christian for evidence for God's existence? Would you do so in order to feel justified in opposing Him?

If so, what would you oppose Him for? For all that you think He has done that is as you would say "horrible" or "evil"?

But if God is evil in your eyes, then you must have some sort of idea about what is good, from which evil is a deviation. But if you have some sort of idea about what is good and what is evil then you must believe in some sort of moral ideal or law or standard which is your basis for distinguishing between good and evil. Something good being that which meets the ideal or law or standard, and something evil being that which fails to meet that ideal or law or standard.

But if there is no law or ideal or standard existing independently of you and I or anyone else on earth then all we have is a bunch of opinions, none being any closer to the non-existent ideal law or standard because it does not exist.

You believe God is evil. I believe He is good. In your world neither of us can say that our views are preferable over the other by virtue of their corresponding with the law that exists objectively outside of us because no such law exists!

But if no such law exists to which our views can be compared to, then you saying God is evil is like saying spaghetti is nasty. It is your opinion, nothing more.

The only way out of this is to posit the existence of an objective moral law. But if you posit this then you must give a coherent account of its ontology. Thus far, no one has been able to show how moral values and duties can exist independently of human beings in the absence of a transcendant moral law giver.

Are you terminally stupid?

I don't currently live my life in opposition to your god because I don't belleve he exists.

If it were shown he did, then I should be in opposition because the god described in the Bible is a right prick. The text describes him so.

So, no, I wouldn't go on living the way I currently do.

You live your life in opposition to Him because you sin daily against Him. Whether or not you are cognizant of the fact is moot. I can be offensive to someone and never know that I am, they just may bear with me and never tell me, or they could tell me and I may not believe them.

For you, the latter is true, for you have been told you are a sinner against a Holy God and dismiss the testimony and even freely admit that your opinion of Him is not good.

Once again, you have stated these things, i.e. that you think God to be worthy of opposition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 07:49 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 06:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  What you fail to realize is that when you choose life without God, you necessarily forfeit good for evil. All the pain and suffering in the world people like you charge God with is actually the result of people living according to your mentality.

Forfeit the Highest Good and evil is all you are left with.
Evil, hmm... now where did that come from again? Oh, that's right. Your god created it. And since you also believe the bible is his word, then he also admitted it (Isaiah 45:7). Even from your twisted point of view, it would be completely your god's deliberate doing that evil is all that is left when someone chooses a life without your god. Your god also supposedly set up the whole environment in which Eve's sin resulted in all the pain and suffering in the world. He could have set things up completely differently - like a truly benevolent god would have - but he didn't. Consider

It bothers me every time my kids get something as minor as a cold. It tugs at my heart strings to see them coughing, sneezing, congested, feverish, vomiting, etc and I end up wishing I could trade places with them to relieve them of it. How in the hell does a benevolent god look down at all the world's suffering knowing he could take it all away, but then do absolutely nothing?! You blame Adam, Eve, humans and sin for this, but then forget this is all your god's plan that has been set since before the world existed according to your belief. There are countless ways to see how ALL the responsibility would lie with your god if he really existed, but you see none of it. Obviously, your head is planted firmly and deeply in the sand!

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
03-05-2014, 07:51 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 07:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 07:36 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You do not believe what you just wrote.

You do not believe morality is defined by people, if so, then you would have to agree that everything anyone has ever done was moral, but clearly you do not agree with that for you think Christians are immoral followers of an immoral fictitious character in a book.

If you really thought morality i.e what was right and what was wrong was defined by the individual, then you cannot denounce the Nazis for doing anything wrong because they thought they were doing what was right.

You cannot denounce Christians for anything they do, or anyone else for that matter.

You have failed.

You really, really need to stop telling us what we do and do not believe. Your arrogance and stupidity are colossal.

We derive morality by reason and emotion. The 'lawgiver' is us.

Who or what did the Nazis derive their morality from? Themselves no?

Who or what did Jeffrey Dahmer derive his morality from? Himself no?

Your view is not even one you hold, at least not actually. For in order to hold it consistently you would have to confess that everyone determines what is right and what is wrong based on their reasons and emotions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 07:57 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 07:49 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 06:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  What you fail to realize is that when you choose life without God, you necessarily forfeit good for evil. All the pain and suffering in the world people like you charge God with is actually the result of people living according to your mentality.

Forfeit the Highest Good and evil is all you are left with.
Evil, hmm... now where did that come from again? Oh, that's right. Your god created it. And since you also believe the bible is his word, then he also admitted it (Isaiah 45:7). Even from your twisted point of view, it would be completely your god's deliberate doing that evil is all that is left when someone chooses a life without your god. Your god also supposedly set up the whole environment in which Eve's sin resulted in all the pain and suffering in the world. He could have set things up completely differently - like a truly benevolent god would have - but he didn't. Consider

It bothers me every time my kids get something as minor as a cold. It tugs at my heart strings to see them coughing, sneezing, congested, feverish, vomiting, etc and I end up wishing I could trade places with them to relieve them of it. How in the hell does a benevolent god look down at all the world's suffering knowing he could take it all away, but then do absolutely nothing?! You blame Adam, Eve, humans and sin for this, but then forget this is all your god's plan that has been set since before the world existed according to your belief. There are countless ways to see how ALL the responsibility would lie with your god if he really existed, but you see none of it. Obviously, your head is planted firmly and deeply in the sand!

To say God has done nothing regarding the evils of this world is to ignore the most important thing He has done.

Until you give your life for my sins, you will never be able to convince me that you have a better plan than what God's plan is for the evils of this life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 08:05 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 07:24 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  What do you found your moral judgments on?

On the very same that next to everyone else on the planet bases theirs on: The consideration of whether an action is beneficial or harmful to the recipient and performer.

And it takes absolutely zero effort to come up with scenarios that don't have a simple answer in that framework, it's not always a clear cut, positive-sum game, as I'm sure you know. That, and the fact that ideas about particular actions' morality have evolved, testify to the difficulty of finding optimal solutions in zero-sum and negative-sum situations.

There are obviously also other factors that some people in particular take into consideration, such as authority, loyalty and perceived sacredness -- I don't subscribe much to those, if at all. At best they can help to tip the scales in ambiguous cases. But the one that virtually all people subscribe to is the one first mentioned.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 08:10 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 08:05 PM)John Wrote:  On the very same that next to everyone else on the planet bases theirs on: The consideration of whether an action is beneficial or harmful to the recipient and performer.

So an act is good if it is beneficial to the recipient and bad if it is harmful?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 08:11 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 08:05 PM)John Wrote:  On the very same that next to everyone else on the planet bases theirs on: The consideration of whether an action is beneficial or harmful to the recipient and performer.

What if I determine what is moral by a different standard than you?

What makes your standard better than mine?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 08:26 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 08:10 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So an act is good if it is beneficial to the recipient and bad if it is harmful?

No. An action that is beneficial is better than an action that is not beneficial, and an action that is harmful is worse than an action that is not harmful.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: