Dan56

True, many do dismiss God because of a lack of proof, they are called Atheist. I claim that belief is a choice because it does involve choosing the right God. And since I 'believe' I've chosen the only right God (monotheist), I must presume all others are false and don't exist. Belief is what one has in the absence of definitive proof, but once belief is validated, its not belief anymore, it becomes a fact and belief is void of purpose (unnecessary). Glad that your open-minded enough to wonder; (Yet, for me, there is something greater than just us out there)..

Of course, anyone can accept God with proof, but Atheist are Atheist because they'll never get that absolute proof.. So imo, they won't and don't believe anything about God. Consider that absolute proof removes the necessity of belief. Faith is the result of belief... And yes, belief is a choice, it can be nothing else.. Its a standard response because its absolutely true

Atheism (noun) is the Belief that no deities exist.. I would not call it a religion per se, but it is a belief. I don't necessarily conflate atheism with science, although many Atheist formulate their belief on the basis of what science can reveal, and science can't reveal anything divine. Belief is a decision and so is non-belief, whatever we decide to choose formulates our decision; i.e; I believe in God or I believe in no gods. True, there is no middle ground for me. "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16). Your either in on all fours or your not in at all. Faith is not about partial belief or compromising with what science can or cannot prove. I view science as agnostic, it can't factually conclude the existence or nonexistence of God, so science is essentially a dead-end street on the subject. I agree that science should be neutral on the issue since it can't substantiate anything.

My point was that science proves nothing, whereby your faith is in nothing. Yes, Genesis is accepted by faith, and so is scientific hypothesis & theories. You simply can't prove a supernatural spiritual Being with physical observable evidence. In regards to other religions, I don't find them believable. Christianity is better documented & witnessed, it has prophetic evidence, accurate history, and a consistent message that makes the most sense to me. It also has Christ who is proclaimed to be the living manifestation of God on Earth and who physically rose from the grave. Bottom line is that no one knows anything for certain, so everyone has faith in something, even if its faith in what they've reasoned within themselves and become convinced that what they think is right. 'There is a God' and 'there is no God' are both conclusions reached in the complete absence of objective evidence. The scriptures are the best evidence of themselves. The records and dates of the area's where the gospels were first noticed is no indication of when they were written or where they first originated. Claims that certain books are fraudulent is unproven wild speculation. This is not a "no religion" thread, Christianity is in the topic and its considered a religion. And I don't consider this a pulpit, I'm just commenting on wherever the conversation leads, and I believe it was you that brought up the dating of the gospels and all. I don't believe any real Christian can be swayed from the faith by opinions they find argumentative. Christianity has a firm foundation, anyone who rejects it does so on their own judgement of biblical merits. Bottom line is that we are called by faith, not proof, God so ordained it to be that way for a very good reason.

I'm aware that you believe in nothing spiritual (Agnostic), and you accept nothing that can't be proven.. But you've also reached conclusions that have not and can not be proven, so your a walking contradiction. That was my point, you reject intelligent design, but yet you embrace unproven theories like the big bang and evolution. I don't regard your faith in these type of unproven theories to be any more legitimate than what you consider my faith in an Intelligent Designer to be. Your no different than people of faith, you simply rationalize within yourself through limited human understanding of what could or might have been, and then place your faith in what you convinced yourself is true. My point being, when push comes to shove, believing that you evolved from swamp scum has no more evidentiary support than my belief in intelligent design. Scholar's can only speculate since the original writings no longer exist. No one can possibly know exact dates because there's no direct evidence to date the writings. Why would no NT letter mention the destruction of the Temple in 70AD? It was a fulfilled prophecy that would have lent credibility to the gospels. You can google the question and get a variety of dates, so its not a matter of twisting history, but all speculative guessing. Its true that the Roman church dominated clear through the middle ages, but it was never the only song in town. Many believe that the prophesies in Daniel 11 and Revelation 13 foretold the dark ages where this pagan beast (papacy/catholicism) would persecute the true Church of believers. Jesus warned of many who would come in his name falsely proclaiming themselves, and Paul said it was occurring even at the time of his writings.

Your repeating a lot of false and unconfirmed assumptions. The New Testament as it exists today was in circulation and recognized as inspired long before the Council of Nicea. All of the books that comprise the New Testament were written by AD 70 (Revelation 95 AD). Even during Paul’s lifetime, his letters were already in circulation among the early believers. Paul instructed the members in Colossae: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” (Colossians 4:16, & 1 Thessalonians 5:27.) Roman church councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. Nor is there any evidence that the gospels were ever modified or edited. The RCC simply recognized a canon that was already there. It is important to understand that no church and no action of men are responsible for Holy Scripture. No council somehow made a book “inspired.” The various statements of the councils merely recognized what the body of believers had already established as inspired. And none of the 27 NT books have differing views or contradict each other. The only temporary disagreement was when Peter disagreed with taking the gospel to Gentiles, but God himself revealed to him that He chose Paul for that specific purpose. You have a disbelief and that is all. No, one believes what they are convinced is true, the Truth then becomes useful. Glad you don't take it as a threat.. For me, its not a threat either, its a promise. You guys have chosen not to belief for various reasons, but for believers, it takes more faith to believe the things that you do than it does to belief the gospels. Just take the complexities and harmonization of creation for example. You believe by shear happenstance and unknown origin, that everything just miraculously came into existence and fell together by accident. That to me is like taking all the parts of a Swiss watch, shaking them up in a coffee can, and then magically pouring out an assembled watch. So its as confounding to me to understand how y'all can be so gullible as to dismiss Intelligent Design in favor of embracing the unknown, unproven, and mysterious existence of all that exist.

I'd disagree, belief changes the believer.. It can alter your behavior, improve your character, create a positive demeanor, attitude, and aptitude. How and what a person perceives to be true also changes them. Life beyond what can be physically observed gives life a deeper meaning. Your entire disposition changes with hope. You dismiss evidence that doesn't fit into your narrow view, which only consist of what you can see and touch. Considering everything beyond what you can physically observe to be false, is an empty assertion. Consequences aren't a threat, you already believe life ends when you die, so how can confirmation of that be construed as threatening? Faith is much more than an opinion, its the substance and action of an accepted truth. The first century church had nothing to do with the Roman empire, the apostles established churches (groups) which often met secretly to avoid Roman persecution. I'd argue that organized religion (Roman church) was a false off-shoot of what was becoming a popular and widely accepted movement (Christianity). It was this false papacy which was motivated by power and money that perpetuated violence to assert control and dominance. The apostles warned of false religion which would evolve and pollute the Truth. Belief in the teachings and example of Christ have never changed, the path to salvation was established, it didn't develop or morph into anything other than what's described in the gospels. The RCC didn't invent or discover the books which comprise the New Testament, they simply took and accepted what was already widely circulated, accepted, and authenticated by the founding first century churches. I agree that the Roman church debated the divinity of Christ, but there was and never has been a biblical question about it. That's all I meant by conflating religion with Christ, who didn't organize or establish what became Catholicism, which contradicts most of what Christ taught.

The difference is belief... If someone found a birth certificate 500 years from now with your name on it, they might very well believe that you existed based on that simple written record that someone else wrote and witnessed. That's how Christians perceive the bible. The big difference is that Christ is not dead, and belief in his existence will change everything for everyone. And of course, non-belief has consequences, which brings us back to the topic of this thread. Your conflating the acts of the RCC with the gospel. Catholicism violates much (most) of what Christ taught. The faith is not defined by religion or a religious organization. Did Christ whip, beat, or torture anyone? When what a Pope declares conflicts with the teachings and example of Christ, its not Christian, its false. Facts don't disprove a faith, and without facts to disprove what I believe, they can't very well "bounce off" my faith.. Consider that when a prophecy is fulfilled to the letter, the facts support faith. I know how hard it is to believe anything these days, but belief gives life substance. Without faith, life is void of meaning. Life is nothing more than a temporary existence with no definitive answers, resolutions, or purpose. Faith is the substance of what's not yet seen, and its that hope through understanding that makes sense out of life. Perhaps if y'all spent as much time trying to understand rather than disprove the bible, you wouldn't have such defiant attitudes? Belief begins by emptying yourself of what you think and humbly considering answers that you can't literally substantiate. You won't find physical evidence, and science doesn't have the answers, so belief replaces "I don't know" with the faith that Christ was and is the Truth. Without that simple foundation, your debating in a vacuum and you'll never find any real rhyme or reason to life.

One either believes in the written record or they dismiss it.. But again, what's the motivation for making it up? In a hundred years or more, there will probably be no evidence of Jonathan either, those who claim that such a person ever existed with no evidence for Jonathan, will foolishly base their conclusion on faith and fraud.

Yes, it is my belief... I wasn't trying to present evidence, but simply stating what's written... No one can proof it to be true or false, its accepted by faith. Both, he was resurrected and then appeared to brethren, not law-enforcers, journalists, or the general public. While his physical body was resurrected, he was also in spirit. John 20:19 & 26 states that Jesus came to his disciples, who were in a locked house, and Jesus appeared in the midst of them (twice). And when he departed for the final time, he didn't walk, he ascended into heaven. Apparently, your not familiar with scripture; "And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison" (Acts 5:18). "They stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead" (Acts 14:19). "The chief magistrates tore their robes off them and proceeded to order them to be beaten with rods" (Acts 16:22). "Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes" (2 Corinthians 11:24). etc. Stephen was stoned. James was beheaded. Philip crucified. Matthew slain with a sword. James the brother of Jesus, had his brains dashed out with a fuller's club. Matthias stoned and then beheaded. Andrew crucified. Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria. Peter crucified upside down. Paul beheaded with a sword. Jude crucified. Bartholomew beaten then crucified. Thomas killed with a spear. Luke hanged. Simon crucified. John was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil, but lived and was exiled and died on the island of Patmos. If Jesus was not resurrected, why would a bunch of scared disciples who ran away, all of a sudden decide He was worth dying for?

No, because he only appeared to those who knew him. Where does it say that he appeared to gentles, Romans, or nonbelievers? His appearances were only to his followers. And what do you suppose that agenda was? Money & fame? Nearly all of them were afflicted, persecuted, imprisoned, and killed, just like Christ.. Hardly an agenda one would aspire to achieve. True, there no middle ground for me. In context, Jesus was instructing those who would be his apostles.. And collectively, they did perform a greater number of miracles in that first century, and then it ended.

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matthew 27:52&53). They weren't zombies in appearance, they were simply people formally known by those they appeared to. In other words, the Baker Joe would appear to those who knew him when he was alive, so his re-appearance was a witness to the resurrective power of Christ. A Roman would have just seen another Jew walking down the street with no clue. This miracle was foretold by Christ in John 5:25-28, it served as a living testimony of his resurrection and his promise that there is life beyond the grave.. Consider that if a dead relative personally appeared to you as evidence and confirmation of life after death, would your first concern be that no reporter witnessed it, or that no historian recorded it? The miracle was only meant for you, just as the biblical miracle was only meant to establish the faith of believers.

Historians didn't know the people who resurrected, so why would they write about people they didn't recognize? The event was only relevant to those who knew and witnessed the resurrected ones. Rome should have taken credit for destroying the Temple, because they did it. Jesus just said it would be torn down (Not one stone a top another), so how do the versions conflict? None of the gospels conflict, There were 2 angels at the tomb. Matthew 28:5-6 quotes one angel who spoke to the women outside of the tomb, saying; "He is not here... come see". Mark 16:5 quotes another angel inside the sepulcher who told the women; "He is risen...go tell his disciples". But Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 both confirm there were 2 angels at the tomb. Yes, the gospel writers went to extreme measures to 'harmonize' their gospels with Hebrew scriptures, even to the extent of arranging their leader be crucified ... Please

Ever hear of the Roman historian Tacitus, or the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus? Most scholars, even non-Christian ones are convinced Jesus existed. There's no Jewish records that deny his existence either. Not all gospels are the same, Only John's gospel mentions the 'woman at the well', but the omission from the other gospels doesn't mean it didn't happen. Mark just didn't cover what happened after the crucifixion. Its fine that you don't believe it, my only point was that fulfilled prophecy is considered evidence to Christians, even though you disregard it.. And the "Threat of Christian Damnation" is a nonreligious topic? Hmm

So your saying that Christ volunteered to be crucified to fulfill scripture? I wonder if those Roman soldiers knew what their role was in order to fulfill the prophecy? Jesus said, "They shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again" (Luke 18:33). I wonder how he choreographed that? Especially the raising from the dead part? Did he bend his own prophecy or fulfill it? I know you don't believe any of it even happened, but the empty tomb is evidence to believers that it did. It would have been easy for his enemies or the Roman soldiers who guarded his tomb to discredit the resurrection claim by producing a body, but they couldn't and didn't. Talk about an absence of evidence!

Yes, I'm aware that the bible is received by faith and not tangible or objective evidence.. But many things are accepted by the preponderance of evidence, and while subjective evidence can't be factually evaluated, it can still be credible evidence which can establish some legitimacy towards determining a truth. The prophecies of Christ are a perfect example, and its what takes the gospel out of the category of "mythology" for me. A quote like Psalm 22:18, "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture". This foretold the crucifixion which occurred 1000 years later when the Roman soldiers gambled for his cloak, "And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots" (Matthew 27:35). It may be a pointless quote to someone who writes it off as a wild coincident, but its relevant evidence to others, including myself. The bible is evidence when it accurately and divinely predicted a future event.

God is Spirit, so He is not seen, but Christians believe that God was revealed through Christ. God is revealed in His works, in His Word, and in events. “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him. But God hath revealed it unto us by his Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:10). As Jesus told Philip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (john 14:9). But of course, belief and faith are necessary components. That's true, but what they miss is that God is knowable in Christ. We understand God through Christ. Seeing is not the real proof, understanding is. Of course, we can't fathom the depths of God (Isaiah 55:8-9), but we can learn enough through His Word to know Him.

I'm aware that Atheist & Agnostics accept things by evidence, but that doesn't require belief. My inference was that they don't accept anything spiritual, because they reject what can't be proven. You simply trust books that support theories like the big bang, evolution, etc, while I trust another book. Life consist of more than a list of facts that we can prove, there are many unanswered questions, and that's where that old bronze age book fills a void that is absent from the human knowledge base. God exist outside of time, outside of space, and is immaterial, so He is not revealed or defined by scientific method or observation.

I understand the theory, but to me its just an unproven hypothesis with no more evidential support than anything in the bible. If it all started with a Bang, I'd still believe God initiated it, even a collider needs beams of particles, nothing can come from nothing. Agnostic just means an absence of knowledge, to paraphrase what Jonathan just wrote, "Without such facts, I don't know". God is spiritually discerned, you won't find any physical evidence that proves God in any science book. I understand that some people won't accept anything that they can't factually substantiate, but you can't deduce God by the observation of physical evidence. God is Spirit and so are we. That said, I believe there is prophetic evidence, but nonbelievers are content to write it all off as coincidence. I simply write what I believe, its not an argument, nor meant to irritate. My intent here was to understand why my "fantasy beliefs" threaten others? We've been all through the "evidence" discussion before, with no resolution of course. Any belief is accepted by faith. Mine makes sense to me, so I've chosen to embrace it. Everyone finds there own truth, others seem content going down a dead-end street, but that doesn't appeal to me at all.

No, I'm not capable of agreeing with something that I don't agree with... The same could be said of you. The difference is; Preaching eternal salvation is hardly a comparable threat as shooting someone. That's why in the free west, Christians aren't sentenced like criminals. Proving a belief wasn't the assumption I dispelled, eternal damnation is what I was alluding to.. Your correct, God, spirit, bible, etc, are all accepted by faith, there's no objective evidence that proves any of it, and I've never suggested otherwise. I am just trying to figure out why you are all scared to death of something you don't even believe is true? Being frightened of something that your convinced doesn't exist seems like nonsense to me. Your list of what I believe is essentially true... I understand the objective evidence you seek, but that type of proof isn't available, it must be accepted by faith. I'm relatively positive that you wouldn't accept the Christian God even if there were indisputable evidence. So it is as much about dislike and hate as it is evidence. Its true that spirituality is different from your physical reality, and its also true that my spiritual view is seamless. And yes, Christ said that he was the truth, so its either true or false, and I obviously believe the former. Imo, you have no answers, facts, or evidence to prove anything either. Your Agnostic because you don't know the answers, you don't have objective evidence that proves how everything came into existence, while I've simply decided to accept a spiritual reality that explains what you don't know.. I know its difficult for you to believe in intelligent design, but I find it much more fathomable than; In the beginning there was nothing, and then nothing exploded, and everything magically came into being! That requires more faith for me to swallow than believing in a Spiritual Creator.

To the contrary, I dispelled the threat of eternal damnation.. There is simply death for those who don't believe they have an eternal spirit. And Jonathan doesn't believe in eternal damnation, so to be threatened by it is illogical.. Its like someone threatening to shoot you, but they don't have a gun, but yet he's still scared to death of being shot. I don't get it because its irrational.

Yes, we know people physically die, but we don't know that they spiritually die because there's no evidence of that. And hope is the belief that one did resurrect., at least it was witnessed and his grave is empty. In either scenario, people die. With your ending, death is a terrible and permanent thing. Likewise with Christianity, except that it offers a very rewarding alternative. I said nothing incorrect about Atheism or Agnosticism, so of course your 'corrections' were immaterial.. And you probably don't remember that I quoted the dictionary's definition of Atheism & Agnosticism, so your trifling is with the Webster-dictionary. You seem to label anything that contradicts what you think as 'condescending'. So no, I didn't expect a polite or respectful response from you. I always expect a rude and spiteful response from those who have no argument.

Most Christians don't embrace Christianity out of fear, but out of hope for eternal life.. Consider the alternative nonreligious indoctrination; When you die, its over and you cease to exist forever, you become food for worms and simply return to dust, never to be remembered again.. Is that the ultimate reality that you prefer children be allowed to embrace? What really promotes a more threatening and fearful scenario? That was all I was pointing out... I personally would never feel threatened by what I considered "a bronze age book of fiction". Nor would I fear the people who choose to believe it, unless they were chasing me with a gun and trying to force it down my throat

There's also a distinction to be made between an imaginary threat and paranoia too. If you feel threatened by something you don't even believe is real, then your right, I don't understand it.. Its kind of like someone telling me that I better watch out because Santa Claus is coming to town. I hardly perceive that warning as any kind of threat!

Its no threat if you don't believe it... Damnation & eternal life are only relative to those who believe that their soul & spirit don't perish with their flesh body.