If Christianity were proven true

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

If Christianity were proven true.  "Godless Mom" speaks her mind in a blog.

 

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessmom/2019/08/what-would-you-do-if-christianity-were-proven-true/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Imagine+No+Religion&utm_content=44

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mark 45]

i found most of it to be humorous.she writes well.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mark 45 said:

i found most of it to be humorous.she writes well.

 

 

Usually when I see a what if post -- (What if God's existence could be proven?) -- the poster neglects to say which God.  I was surprised by how specific this was.

 

 

 

[Dan56]

Imo, she illustrated what I've always said, nonbelievers don't reject Christ because of a lack of evidence, they reject the message because they simply don't like it, even hate it. 

From what she wrote, its also clear that she's biblically illiterate.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

28 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

Imo, she illustrated what I've always said, nonbelievers don't reject Christ because of a lack of evidence, they reject the message because they simply don't like it, even hate it. 

From what she wrote, its also clear that she's biblically illiterate.

 

 

As you say, the author of this blog, does not like the message.  In fairness, neither do I.  In my opinion, this is mere icing on the cake.

 

Before we get anywhere near Jesus -- or the Christian message -- there is the small matter of God.  Not any God.  The God of the Bible.  In my own case, this is a much harder sell than Jesus.  Belief is a structure.  Like a house.  There is small virtue in crafting the perfect roof, until the cellar is installed.  IMO

 

There is a lack of objective, verifiable evidence, for the existence of God.   I understand that faith works for you.  It does not work for me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[RevBogovac]

9 hours ago, Dan56 said:

[...] From what she wrote, its also clear that she's biblically illiterate.

 

I would like to share (on of) her reply('s) regarding that with you Dan:

 

Hey Dan!  

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

I would like to share (on of) her reply('s) regarding that with you Dan:

 

Hey Dan!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's funny.               

 

 

 

[Dan56]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

I would like to share (on of) her reply('s) regarding that with you Dan:

 

Hey Dan!  

 

 

 

I agree that its funny... But its another biblical inaccuracy...  At least, I don't believe Noah's flood was worldwide, but was limited to the biblical region where Adam's descendants lived. In which case, there's no need to necessitate a wacky scenario where any sloth had to board the ark since the only animals in need of saving were those indigenous to a given region.. In the bible "erets" can also refer to country, territory, or all the land of its inhabitants in relation to the story being told. Whereby,  "all the land or earth (erets)" does not always imply global or worldwide, but is only referencing the area surrounding all the people who dwell there.  

[RevBogovac]

15 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

I agree that its funny... But its another biblical inaccuracy...  At least, I don't believe Noah's flood was worldwide, but was limited to the biblical region where Adam's descendants lived. In which case, there's no need to necessitate a wacky scenario where any sloth had to board the ark since the only animals in need of saving were those indigenous to a given region.. In the bible "erets" can also refer to country, territory, or all the land of its inhabitants in relation to the story being told. Whereby,  "all the land or earth (erets)" does not always imply global or worldwide, but is only referencing the area surrounding all the people who dwell there.  

 

Nice hoop, again...

 

Hi Dan!  

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

16 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

I agree that its funny... But its another biblical inaccuracy...  At least, I don't believe Noah's flood was worldwide, but was limited to the biblical region where Adam's descendants lived. In which case, there's no need to necessitate a wacky scenario where any sloth had to board the ark since the only animals in need of saving were those indigenous to a given region.. In the bible "erets" can also refer to country, territory, or all the land of its inhabitants in relation to the story being told. Whereby,  "all the land or earth (erets)" does not always imply global or worldwide, but is only referencing the area surrounding all the people who dwell there.  

 

 

To be clear -- the story of Adam and Eve is literal history -- and the story of Noah's Flood is not literal history -- and the difference is what you believe.          

 

I'm going with objective, verifiable facts.  None of it is literal history.          Or true.     

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

It's a given I believe for most that killing those innocent of a crime or killing kids is morally wrong.  Yet Christianity has tricked countless into believing 2+2=5, or that this obviously immoral act is good.  

God sends two bears to kill 42 kids because one called his guy bald.  41 of them didn't do anything... but still got the death penalty for the one who did.  

That's immoral.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

18 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

It's a given I believe for most that killing those innocent of a crime or killing kids is morally wrong.  Yet Christianity has tricked countless into believing 2+2=5, or that this obviously immoral act is good.  

God sends two bears to kill 42 kids because one called his guy bald.  41 of them didn't do anything... but still got the death penalty for the one who did.  

That's immoral.

 

 

A note of caution:

 

This thread is about proving the truth of Christianity.  The abundant evil, of the God character, is a different issue.  It shifts the conversation from truth and evidence, to moral evaluation.  I think that if we go down that path; this thread will degenerate quickly.

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

A note of caution:

 

This thread is about proving the truth of Christianity.  The abundant evil, of the God character, is a different issue.  It shifts the conversation from truth and evidence, to moral evaluation.  I think that if we go down that path; this thread will degenerate quickly.

 

 

 

Probably correct.  I was answering Dan...something I should have known better to do, in retrospect, when he said we just don't like the message.  True enough, I don't like the message that endorses so much evil.  I don't like lots of different mythologies any better, though.  Lots of them paint their deities as pretty evil characters, or at least flawed.  

 

But alas, you are right.  It was off topic.  Apologies.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

Probably correct.  I was answering Dan...something I should have known better to do, in retrospect, when he said we just don't like the message.  True enough, I don't like the message that endorses so much evil.  I don't like lots of different mythologies any better, though.  Lots of them paint their deities as pretty evil characters, or at least flawed.  

 

But alas, you are right.  It was off topic.  Apologies.

 

 

I understand your concerns.  My concern is management.  I don't want the thread to get locked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

On 8/30/2019 at 5:40 AM, cuchulain said:

It's a given I believe for most that killing those innocent of a crime or killing kids is morally wrong.  Yet Christianity has tricked countless into believing 2+2=5, or that this obviously immoral act is good.  

God sends two bears to kill 42 kids because one called his guy bald.  41 of them didn't do anything... but still got the death penalty for the one who did.  

That's immoral.

 

It doesn't say "one" mocked Elisha, it indicates more than one, possibly all of them were united in purpose? And it doesn't say any of them were killed.

"Some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”  So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths." (2 Kings 2: 23-24)

 

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/WhyDidGodHaveChildrenKilled.html

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

It doesn't say "one" mocked Elisha, it indicates more than one, possibly all of them were united in purpose? And it doesn't say any of them were killed.

"Some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”  So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths." (2 Kings 2: 23-24)

 

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/WhyDidGodHaveChildrenKilled.html

 

I followed your link.  This is where you go for advice?  That was instructive.  It explains a lot about you.

 

The first point is pure supposition.  All Atheists are insincere?  Seriously?  Someone has to come down off his high horse -- and smell the chloroform.

 

The second point has partial truth.  Atheists don't rely on absolute moral codes.  This much is true.  Atheists don't need absolute moral codes, in order to look at obvious evil -- and draw their own conclusions.  The illusory nature of absolute codes, is another discussion.

 

The third point is simply irritating.  Atheism does not support Abortion or anything else.  Atheism is not a code of conduct.  Atheism is a conclusion about God's existence, based on a lack of evidence.  Nothing more.  You keep making Atheism into something that it is not.  It seems, so does your source of advice.

 

 

 

   1.         Children are innocent, so why would God order their deaths?

II.        Before answering, let me point out that the atheist asking is insincere

            A.        An atheist doesn’t believe in God, nor in any absolute moral code.

            B.        Atheism has long supported the killing of children in the form of abortion. They justify the destruction of “unwanted” children for convenience.

                        1.         Therefore to claim that God is unjust for ordering what they think is morally correct is an insincere position.

            C.        Second, to claim that the killing of children is wrong is an appeal to a moral code. This undermines their own belief that morality is relative. You can’t have it both ways.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Hello again Dan:

 

Once again, you have chosen to present Atheism -- and Atheists -- through a lens of Christian faith.  You don't care how Atheists understand Atheism.  You don't care how Atheists understand themselves.  What you care about in this regard -- is how Dan views Atheists and Atheism.

 

It should come as little or no surprise, that some Atheists, have a biased view of Christianity and Christians.

 

Surprise.  I found you an Atheist blogger, who has much to say on the subject. Is the blogger fair or accurate in describing Christianity or Christians?  No.  Both fairness and correctness leave much to be desired.

 

Is this Atheist blogger as correct and fair, in describing Christianity and Christians -- as you are in describing Atheism and Atheists?  Yes. In that sense, the blogger is spot on.

 

Life is a two way street.  If you get to define us -- then we get to define you.  Enjoy.

 

 

 

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rolltodisbelieve/2019/08/27/christian-peace-marketing-tactic/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=364

 

I almost forgot.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[RabbiO]

Whose Christianity?

 

To be honest, I’d have the same reaction if the same question was asked with Judaism substituted for Christianity. There are some significant differences between Judaism as I live it and practice it and the Judaism of, say, a Satmar Hasid.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, RabbiO said:

Whose Christianity?

 

To be honest, I’d have the same reaction if the same question was asked with Judaism substituted for Christianity. There are some significant differences between Judaism as I live it and practice it and the Judaism of, say, a Satmar Hasid.

 

 

 

This thread begins with the objectionable Christianity, described by the blogger, Godless Mom.  The same irritating and objectionable Christianity, that I have encountered on this board.  Abusive, irritating, dominating and controlling.  Dominionist Christianity.  Please.  No names.  You know who I'm thinking of.

 

Yes.  There are Christianities that are sweet, loving and gentle.  There are Christians who are sweet, loving and gentle.  I can not be all inclusive on this board, without sounding like a stilted, legal document.

 

It's been too long.  I've missed you.

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

Dan always acts surprised to learn that I don't support abortion.  And I am a republican.  Like these are exclusive to christians. His response is we are immoral and so cannot question the morality of others...