808state

I can't begin to tell you of the sorrows that fill my heart to hear of your hopeless estate!!! The horrid things you witness and the belief that is as good as it gets.... do you have an idea or ideal of betterment? If your answer is yes may I ask to what end? Do you seek pleasure for yourself as motivation to obtain anything? I am sorry! I am just curios about you! I was raised in the knowledge of Christ and I have always had hope in Him... I became vile when I thought I could do somethings in my own strength with the exclusion of Him and give Him trinkets of my life for Him to be Lord over... that I believe to the major portion of religion today! As I participated in sins they grew exceedingly strong and demanding of me... I can tell you that I know of at least 7 miracles were performed to continue life in me- some were pretty evident even to those around me especially my dad on earth... I believe His Godly prayers is what motivated the Lord to keep me alive for I cannot imagine any other reason! I struggled with the reality knowing what Jesus had to go though because of my sins yet enjoying them after this knowledge I thought this applied- I think my general philosophy on life is simply to experience as much of it as I can, and to appreciate it before it's gone. I think learning to take the good with the bad is a big part of that philosophy, and learning to accept that it's all apart of life. Do I seek pleasure for myself as motivation to obtain things? I'm not sure what you mean. That would make sense.

Well, first, much of the New Testament was written anonymously, correct? Regardless, if they did flat out fabricate or exaggerate the stories, their motive doesn't have to be self-glorification. Like I said before, a likely reason could be to move society in a different direction with a new religion. The point of making themselves look bad could have been for the sake of representing the more negative aspects of human nature and to show how you could fight against those negative aspects of yourself with the teachings of the religion. They were demonstrations of what the religion could do for the masses. It was a selling point. If the everyone in the story was perfect, how could followers sympathize with them? And if they can't sympathize with them, how would these stories inspire change? That's a good thought. There are many possibilities. Again, we don't know much about Jesus outside of the Bible. It could be that Jesus did not get himself a nice new tomb like it says in the Bible, but was thrown in the town garbage dump, which was typically where the executed were "laid to rest" in Ancient Rome. If that were the case, there's a good chance that no one would want to go looking/digging to find his body in that situation. Especially if they were Jewish, since they are not allowed to be near dead bodies without breaking ritual cleanliness. It could also be that they simply didn't care to. They could have thought that he was like any other Messiah claimant of the time, and didn't anticipate the influence he would have later on. Well, like I said in my original post, Joe did fly in my presence. And my friends. We know what we saw. But Joe died. So, you're just gonna have to take our word for it. Again, you're evidence only works if we assume that everything in the Bible is true. Ok. So let's say Jesus was neither a "lunatic" or a "habitual liar." Let's just say he lied about things to get people to believe he was the Messiah. It wouldn't have been the first time someone had successfully lied about being supernatural in some form. This is assuming that everything written about Jesus in the Bible is true. This works if one is already a Christian, but this "available data" isn't going to help me out much for reasons that have been repeated in this thread. Again, you've misunderstood me. Like I said in my previous post, I was not comparing Jesus in general to Greek Gods in general. I specifically was referring to the claim that any of them were actually miracles workers. As far as I am currently concerned, none of them were, and in that regard, they are in the same boat. I was not speaking about what kind of character they had, or what kind of miracles they were preforming, I was only referring to the assertion that they performed any miracles at all. I can only speak for myself. I don't believe them because there is no evidence to their claims along with other issues I personally have with the Bible. When everything is cumulated, It seems very unlikely to me.

I suppose I believe that this life is pretty much it. I wouldn't state that as a fact though. And I can't say I willingly chose that belief. Would this explain animals that have unnecessary (vestigial) characteristics? And thank you for the link. I'll check it out.

Right. But anyone could have made up a story about how the Earth/Universe came to be. Plenty did. And I have no doubt that there are historically factual information in the Bible, I would expect there to be, but that doesn't mean all of it is true. The prophecies involving Jesus take faith to believe in as there is no evidence of them out of the Bible. I genuinely, at this point, don't feel anything toward the religion that would lead me to have faith in it. When I was speaking about the imperfections of the design, I wasn't speaking of immoral behavior. I was talking specifically about the imperfections in the physical design of humans and animals. I understand. But if anything is going to lead me to Christ, the threat of Hell is not going to be it. It probably wouldn't make me a very good Christian if it did.

Have you ever been laughed at for your beliefs, MorningGlory?

These are the general guidelines: http://www.academiavita.org/english/AltriDocumenti/org_int/OLANDA/Testo%20legge%20olandese%20eutanasia%5B1%5D.pdf This focuses on Groningen Protocol with infants: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15702738 But, re-reading the article you posted, does it actually say that patients are being killed against their will? I'll have to withdraw my point first. Sorry about that. Who is to say who is reading it with their heart and who isn't? And we can't disregard the undeniable influence society has had on people interpretation's of the Bible through-out the years. Not to mention, again, there are many different denominations of Christianity with many different interpretations.

Well, if they made up or exaggerated Jesus's story, what would stop them from making up or exaggerating their own? If my friends and I claimed that we saw our other friend, let's call him Joe, flying without the aid of anything, who could prove that we didn't see that? First, how are we defining "lunatic"? You can be mentally unstable, and keep a certain amount of composure. You can certainly be capable of repeating other people's ideas. As far as liars go, most people have lied at some point in their life, and most people would say that lying is wrong. I mean look at politicians. It's not unbelievable that someone would preach one thing and then do the opposite. Just because people can't disprove something, it doesn't make it a fact. That's a logical fallacy. If that were the case, then it would be a fact that my friend, "Joe", can fly. Could you point me in the direction of this available data? Again, we don't know that their eyewitness testimonies actually happened the way they said they happened.

One issue I've always had with the Bible is that, while reading it, it always felt like it was written and thought up by humans. It feels too convenient. It doesn't feel like it was inspired by a God of some sort, but by humans as an attempt to explain things that had yet be explained, to enforce a particular way of living, and perhaps to inspire people to move in a new direction. I can elaborate if you want. As far as the claim of intelligent design goes, I have to ask, why are so many of his designs imperfect if they were designed intelligently? I'm not here to teach anyone anything. I'm here to be taught. I do actively seek truth. I don't claim to have all the answers. But I'm not going to believe in something simply because of a threat. That's manipulation, and it shouldn't be necessary if we're talking about Truth. Well, thank you for that.

You can choose to follow God, choose to trust that that his logic is limitless and ours is limited, and go with it. Which seems to be what you're doing. My personal issue with this is that the Biblical God gives me about as much feeling as another God, y'know? I don't see why I should choose Christianity over any other theistic religion. Because, you're right, I could choose Christianity (and have in the past, mind you), and just believe any doubts I have are simply due to my ignorance, but I could do that with any religion. I mean, the Bible is meant for humans to read. God wanted humans to understand what he was saying so why start using logic that's above our reasoning? Why not translate it in a way that we could understand?

There were non-Christians in Ancient times that were anti-slavery. It's not an original Christian concept at all. And I would say that many "Biblical values" existed somewhere in the world prior to the Bible. The first article seems to be giving out false information on euthanasia in the Netherlands. The patients have to be fully aware of their conditions and must request euthanasia without the influence of others. As far as infants go, it's only if the babies must be going through unbearable suffering that can't be ended any other way, parents must consent, the child has to be thoroughly examined, and the actual termination has to happen very carefully. I don't see anything wrong with that. The original source of the second article retracted their story years ago. Anyway, I think the main issue with wanting to use the Bible as the basis for a government is that there are many many many different interpretations of the Bible. You may not going to get everyone to agree with an interpretation. It's essentially going to be relative to the person doing the interpreting and what society is like at the time, and then we're back at where we started.

So, ideally, how do you think everything should be handled? What would be your solution?

Right, but we are also a constitutional republic, so we still have to adhere to our constitution. I believe democracy has it's root in Ancient Greece... Freedom isn't and shouldn't be based purely on the masses. It has to be constitutional. Look at the days back when interracial marriage was legalized, if it had been up to the majority at the time it would have remained illegal, but it was the supreme court that decided it was unconstitutional. I understand why Christians feel insecure about their religious freedoms, but I do think the Christian media tends over-exaggerate what the non-Christian "agenda" actually is. In-fact, if the media has a biased slant of any kind, chances are, they are probably over-exaggerating the claims of the opposing side..

Yeah, I seem to be getting mixed reviews on that one... So, can logic allow us to discover God? I would imagine that God created logic so the answer would be yes? I would agree that people should stay away from doing anything in excess, but one doesn't have to be a Christian to realize this, right? Now, I've heard a few complaints about America being in a pretty bad place as a society, but how is it any worse than at any other point in it's history? We were always far from perfect. If I'm being honest, there's a lot written in the Bible that has me raising an eyebrow at times, and that's not something I can very easily ignore.

Of course. But, at the end of the day, if it's not affecting anyone else, let people believe what they want. If people want to believe there's an afterlife when they die, and there isn't, what difference is there? Let them be.

Fair enough. But, at the end of the day, they rely on themselves to attain salvation. It's not given to them through self-sacrifice. So, I don't see the bribery. The Qu'ran says that if you die fighting for Allah, then you become a martyr. But it doesn't say to go out of your way to seek martyrdom. It's also not the way to salvation. In-order to become a martyr, you must already be a Muslim, and if you're a "genuine" Muslim, then you already have salvation. As a Christian, don't you still have to live a life that is pleasing to God? In-order to build a close relationship with God, don't you have to pay attention to things said in the Bible and act accordingly? Certainly this can be a daily struggle for many Christians, it takes active work. "Anyone who comes to him [God] must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6) "Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." (Matthew 5:12 ) Certainly you must be genuine in your pursuit of these rewards, and not have these rewards be the basis of your faith. But that's what the other religions I listed say as well. So, again, I'm not seeing a huge difference.

This isn't true. In Hinduism and Buddhism, evangelism and death are not apart of salvation. In Paganism the concept of salvation doesn't even exist. In Islam, you ask for forgiveness and then live your life in a way that's pleasing to Allah. That again, isn't true. As I said above, it's through repentance and living your life for Allah that will guarantee salvation. Well, thank you for those verses, but it doesn't seem that people of other religions are bribed either. Or, at least, no more than in Christianity. Isn't the reward in Christianity salvation? Say there was a Christian, but someone held a gun to this Christian's head and said they either have to denounce their religion or die. If this Christian denounces their religion, wouldn't that buy them a ticket to hell? Wouldn't that be incentive enough not to denounce their religion? ps. In-order to achieve Nirvana in the after life, you have to first achieve it in life. That's not something that's given to you, but something you obtain by yourself. In Islam, as far as the virgins in the afterlife goes, this seems to be promised to all (male) Muslims regardless of how they die. But a lot of Muslims don't seem to believe there will be virgins for anyone in the afterlife. Plus, even if the 72 virgins thing were true, I believe it would be for those that deliberately kill themselves for Allah, not just anyone who dies for Islam in any context.

Yes. I would definitely say it's a little self-centered. What I was pointing out in my other post was the initial appeal of Christianity. Of course, you'd want to glorify the source of your happiness (I figured that was a given, apparently it's not). You're not being a very good Christian if you're not. But, again, when talking to Christians about what initially drew them to Christianity, the main starting point was about what they personally got out of it. And once they saw what they got out of it and saw the power of it, it was then when they began to glorify God. Just speaking from my personal experiences. Well, thank you for sharing.

I don't see how Christians motives are that much different from people of other religions. Everyone believes that their religion is the Truth. Many Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists, etc. sacrificed their lives in favor of their spirituality when faced with forced-conversion. Their main motivation was they believed that they knew the Truth.

Right. I wasn't saying they were trying to build a new society or city. But that early Christians didn't believe the Roman Empire was particularly fair, especially to poor people and the enslaved. Christianity gave them hope of one day not having to deal with the hardships that they had been dealing with. It also gave them an emotional/spiritual support they didn't feel they had before. Religious persecution is not something that only happens to Christians. Pagans died for their beliefs when faced with forced-conversion, Muslims have faced violent persecution, Jews have faced violent persecution, Hindus faced violent persecution, Buddhists faced violent persecution, etc.

Well, yes, they do. I mean, people have lost their lives for other religions in the past, not just Christianity. All it takes is a belief in what they're fighting for. Well, you could say that about almost any religion. Religion, historically, typically plays the part of filling in holes that different societies may have at the time. It seems for early Christians, Christianity addressed problems and inequalities that their society was having at the time. It gave them hope. They thought it would better the society they were living in. Yeah, I don't doubt that there is historical accuracy in the Bible. It's just certain events that don't have verification out of the Bible, it seems, could have been exaggerated or made up.

I'm not saying they did for sure, but it does seem to be a possibility. Considering there is very little on Jesus outside of the Bible, I don't believe we can know for sure what is and isn't true about Jesus. For all I know, the writers of the Bible could have used artistic license with his story, and added parts that didn't actually happen. Fair enough. But then I have to ask the question, were his teachings original? Certainly a liar or a "lunatic" (and I'm not saying he was entirely either) would be able to rehash teachings that they learnt from others. I'm not sure if it's possible to debunk his claims with the information we currently have. So, you're right, it'd be silly to try. I understand that you are very confident in your beliefs, but I'm not. As far as I know, tell me if I'm wrong, there is about as much evidence for the supernatural aspects of Jesus as there is for the supernatural aspects of Mohammed. Perhaps you misunderstood me. For the sake of clarification: Jesus and the Greek gods are, for me, in the same boat as far as their supernatural characteristics go. I was simply stating what I personally believe. I don't see how I was over-generalizing at all. Also, I am here for me. Not for anyone else. I don't expect to change people's minds nor do I care to. If I'm wrong about something, then I will admit to it. It would be pointless for me to not to. I'm sure you will come out of this discussion stronger in your own views.

Yes; Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. And as if this were not enough; Ac 26:12

Yes; Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. And as if this were not enough; Ac 26:12

Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, etc. Assuming these were infact the men that actually wrote the New Testament. It seems a bit unclear. I would say that most people have lied at some point in there life so I don't know if it's that unbelievable that someone who has lied has also had something worthy to say. I mean, look at politicians. As far as lunatics go, I think if we're just talking mentally unstable/ill, then I have met people who would fit that label that had some worthy things to say. I understand what the Bible says his motives are. What I'm saying is, say he was a liar, we don't know why he lied, so it isn't as cut and dry as either he was a "madman" or he was the son of God. Well, Muhammed did claim to be a miracle worker... But, again, I was using Buddha and Muhammed as examples of men who claimed to have some sort of supernatural characteristic about them. Right. Matthitjah asked if me to give examples of others who have claimed to be miracle healers of some kind. So, I did. I wasn't implying they were exactly like Jesus. Understand, my point of view (which i'm sure you very much disagree with), is a little different from yours. I don't believe anyone who have claimed to perform miracles, so as far as I'm concerned, Jesus and the Greek gods are in the same boat in that regard (for now anyway).