GOOD NEWS ATS - No longer will I make religious threads.

wildtimes
reply to post by Woodcarver

 

How would you defend your views to a fundamentalist?

Hoooh boy. Okay, guys...I'ma go sit in the corner for a while.

I hope the OP feels better.

Did i reply to the wrong person?

I know sometimes these convos get heated but i am not upset at all. I am just confused when people who say they are christians and then they say they dont believe what the bible says. How do you reconcile this view? When the only way you know about the story of christ is from this book? But then you say that it shouldnt be taken literally. I surely dont take it literally. But how do you make an argument for the existence of jesus and differentiate it from all the other claims made in the book?

reply to post by Woodcarver

These are universal truths.

According to who? According to man.

reply to post by Woodcarver


NO!!! Nono! I was just responding to your challenge to adjensen....
it's fine.

Aphorism
reply to post by Woodcarver

 

These are universal truths.

According to who? According to man.

Im saying these things are true even without the existence of man.

reply to post by Woodcarver


A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Woodcarver
I am just confused when people who say they are christians and then they say they dont believe what the bible says.... But how do you make an argument for the existence of jesus and differentiate it from all the other claims made in the book?

The Old Testament is mostly myth and allegory and folklore. It was written that way. It was never supposed to be taken as history. And, considering that much of it has been disproven, it would be insane to buy it as literal. On the other hand, the Gospels were written as history. That was their intent. And the gospels have not been disproven. In fact, some of it has been proven .. such as the 'big earthquake when Christ died'. (google up Jerusalem earthquake 33 AD)

Don't forget ... the bible isnt one big book. It's a bunch of little 'books' (short stories and letters). Each one has a different flavor and a different intent.

Jesuslives4u

muzzleflash
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Yeah those are good points. Agreed.

I don't know anything about what happened but I do think this poster has good qualities.
Being able to Own up to a fault and apologize publicly is an excellent trait.
I only wish we were all so inclined, myself included.

What an interesting and ironic lesson there seems to be wrapped in all of this.

This has torn me up and I really do feel like an a@@. I wish I could reel the clock back and start over. I have exposed myself as a fool and I feel like crap. I have judged which has caused judgement on me.

Don't beat yourself up man

Any member on ATS that has not shown passion on a subject is just here for kicks.

I've had post bans owing to passion (and alcohol) and survived for 9 years.

The great thing about this community, and make no mistake this is a community, in some cases an extended family, for me at least. Is their capacity to forgive and support, I've had raging wars with some members that have posted about personal dilemmas or difficulties at a later date.

Without fail the community has downed bias and rallied around said members to support them.

This is probably the 4th or 5th apology I've read in 9 years (The ones I've caught).

It takes a strong person with a great deal of belief to stand naked in front of ATS and apologise so openly.

I may disagree with your beliefs but you have my utmost respect for what it's worth.

Cody

reply to post by Woodcarver


Im assuming you dont believe the world is only 6000 years old? You dont believe that because science proves beyond a doubt that it is otherwise. Science would also prove that people dont come back from the dead. But im assuming you do believe that jesus did this very thing. So if one is possible then why not the other?

FlyersFan

Woodcarver
I am just confused when people who say they are christians and then they say they dont believe what the bible says.... But how do you make an argument for the existence of jesus and differentiate it from all the other claims made in the book?

The Old Testament is mostly myth and allegory and folklore. It was written that way. It was never supposed to be taken as history. And, considering that much of it has been disproven, it would be insane to buy it as literal. On the other hand, the Gospels were written as history. That was their intent. And the gospels have not been disproven. In fact, some of it has been proven .. such as the 'big earthquake when Christ died'. (google up Jerusalem earthquake 33 AD)

Don't forget ... the bible isnt one big book. It's a bunch of little 'books' (short stories and letters). Each one has a different flavor and a different intent.

Big earthquakes happen all the time. Why would you assume that that particular one was caused by supernatural events?

Woodcarver
Big earthquakes happen all the time. Why would you assume that that particular one was caused by supernatural events?

I didn't say it was or wasn't. I simply said that there was a HUGE earthquake that matches the description in the gospel, and it matches the time frame as well. It lends support to the authenticity of the story. However, in the case of the Old Testament, much of it has been disproven. (Noahs Ark, Adam and Eve, Exodus )

reply to post by Woodcarver

How would you defend your views to a fundamentalist?

Why do you suppose that I need to?

I understand what Fundamentalists believe and why, I respect their right to believe it and couldn't care less whether they agree with me or not.

adjensen
reply to post by Woodcarver

 

How would you defend your views to a fundamentalist?

Why do you suppose that I need to?

I understand what Fundamentalists believe and why, I respect their right to believe it and couldn't care less whether they agree with me or not.

Im assuming you dont believe the world is only 6000 years old? You dont believe that because science proves beyond a doubt that it is otherwise. Science would also prove that people dont come back from the dead. But im assuming you do believe that jesus did this very thing. So if one is possible then why not the other?

FlyersFan

Woodcarver
Big earthquakes happen all the time. Why would you assume that that particular one was caused by supernatural events?

I didn't say it was or wasn't. I simply said that there was a HUGE earthquake that matches the description in the gospel, and it matches the time frame as well. It lends support to the authenticity of the story. However, in the case of the Old Testament, much of it has been disproven. (Noahs Ark, Adam and Eve, Exodus )

How does it lend any support to the authenticity if they happen all the time?

adjensen
reply to post by Woodcarver

 

How would you defend your views to a fundamentalist?

Why do you suppose that I need to?

I understand what Fundamentalists believe and why, I respect their right to believe it and couldn't care less whether they agree with me or not.

You are also still ignoring my original questions.

reply to post by Woodcarver


Can anyone chime in on this?

Woodcarver
How does it lend any support to the authenticity if they happen all the time?

1 - Earthquakes of that size don't happen often at all.
2 - Earthquakes in that area of the world aren't an 'all the time' happening either.

Science Journal

FlyersFan

Woodcarver
How does it lend any support to the authenticity if they happen all the time?

1 - Earthquakes of that size don't happen often at all.
2 - Earthquakes in that area of the world aren't an 'all the time' happening either.

Science Journal

I read the link.
I still stick to my point that earthquakes happen all the time because they do, and that christian site does not present any proof of causation. . Do you also believe that thousands of corpses crawled out of their graves and walked through jeruselam?

reply to post by Woodcarver

Im saying these things are true even without the existence of man.

They are neither true nor false without the existence of man. Truth and falsity are honorific terms endowed by man and no one else.

reply to post by Woodcarver

You are also still ignoring my original questions.

I've come to the conclusion that you're irrational, can't understand basic logic, and insist that others believe things that they do not in order to further your own conclusions, so there is no point in responding to you. One of those "don't feed the trolls" things.

adjensen
reply to post by Woodcarver

 

You are also still ignoring my original questions.

I've come to the conclusion that you're irrational, can't understand basic logic, and insist that others believe things that they do not in order to further your own conclusions, so there is no point in responding to you. One of those "don't feed the trolls" things.

And you still havent answered the question?

You have just resorted to attacking me. I think they are perfectly reasonable questions. Anyone else think i am being unreasonable?