What if the bible is true?

[Questioner]

There are much better reasons to believe in God, whether someone accepts them or not.

Curious -

What would you say those better reasons are?

Well, e.g. agreeing with the teachings of that religion. In the case of Christianity, Jesus' teachings certainly are very powerful. That's what people should point to when trying to convince someone, imo. It wouldn't work with me, but at the very least we would be engaged in a meaningful discussion; Pascal's wager is instead provably incorrect and while I'm sure Pascal was honestly wrong, using it only seems to me like leaving the jewels under the counter to show the customers all those pretty pieces of stained glass.

[Questioner]

Grace to you,

I don't understand what you mean Are you arguing that Jesus makes God more likely then other gods?

I'm saying that a full examination is in order in Light of what Jesus Christ claimed about Himself and what His followers Testified about Him doing.

It does in fact make God, Jesus Christ, more likely than other gods.

Jesus Christ just doesn't fit into a neat little box, unless you are prepared to call Him a lunatic and a liar.

Do you believe He was a Good man who espoused Good Teachings?

Peace,

Dave

Matt, if we were to believe what every religious leader claimed about himself and what his followers said about him we'd still be stuck with all the religions of the world having equal probability. What you seem to be saying is that if you give more weight to the Christian religion then that religion has more weight then the others

Please let me say again that my post wasn't an argument against the Christian religion but a rebuttal of the wager. I certainly didn't try to fit Jesus anywhere.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Questioner,

I know you are speaking of Pascals Wager.

I am speaking of Jesus Christ. You are debunking Pascals Wager as an application to prove show the negatives and positives of believing in God

I am using Jesus Christ to suggest that there is a God. Pascals Wager was based upon Christ. Pascal was a Christian and at his wagers roots was the Christian Faith.

You have said;

Matt, if we were to believe what every religious leader claimed about himself and what his followers said about him we'd still be stuck with all the religions of the world having equal probability. What you seem to be saying is that if you give more weight to the Christian religion then that religion has more weight then the others

Jesus Christ is the only widely accepted Religious Leader that I know of who claimed to be God and then Rose from the dead. He forgave sins, even the Jews said only God has this authority, He also healed people of many infirmitys.

I asked you if you believe He was a Good man.

In a recent response you said;

Well, e.g. agreeing with the teachings of that religion. In the case of Christianity, Jesus' teachings certainly are very powerful

Yet;

It wouldn't work with me

You carry on then to say;

What you seem to be saying is that if you give more weight to the Christian religion then that religion has more weight then the others

You yourself have placed weight on what Christ has said above as convincing and powerful. Yet you do not believe.

What is it about Christ that is powerful if He is nothing more than a liar?

I said, That Pascals Wager is not what is at stake here.

It is Christ and His Word and you yourself have said as much.

As I said, He doesn't fit neatly into the box of your mind and thus Pascals Wager too must be wrong.

Let's reduce it to the concern of the Christian Faith even as Pascal did.

Either Jesus Christ is a Good man and telling the Truth about who He is. Or He is not good at all but the worst sort of fellow ever. For He has impacted Western Society and the norms of the world for Centuries, to include the lives of Hundreds of millions of peoples even unto death.

Choosing the negative you could not call His teaching powerful nor convincing. However you have chosen the negative and done exactly that.

What gives?

Jesus Christ does give more weight to the Christian Religion.

Peace,

Dave

[nebula]

I think I need a translation of Pascal's wager before I could judge it.

[Questioner]

Grace to you,

Questioner,

I know you are speaking of Pascals Wager.

I am speaking of Jesus Christ. You are debunking Pascals Wager as an application to prove show the negatives and positives of believing in God

I am using Jesus Christ to suggest that there is a God. Pascals Wager was based upon Christ. Pascal was a Christian and at his wagers roots was the Christian Faith.

You have said;

Matt, if we were to believe what every religious leader claimed about himself and what his followers said about him we'd still be stuck with all the religions of the world having equal probability. What you seem to be saying is that if you give more weight to the Christian religion then that religion has more weight then the others

Jesus Christ is the only widely accepted Religious Leader that I know of who claimed to be God and then Rose from the dead. He forgave sins, even the Jews said only God has this authority, He also healed people of many infirmitys.

I asked you if you believe He was a Good man.

In a recent response you said;

Well, e.g. agreeing with the teachings of that religion. In the case of Christianity, Jesus' teachings certainly are very powerful

Yet;

It wouldn't work with me

I have reasons to believe that Jesus was not God. It's as easy as that. In my eyes He isn't any different than any of the many philosophers that talked about morality and I judge other philosopher's proposals better then Jesus'. That said, Jesus' teachings are certainly very powerful, just look at how many people they convinced. I don't think I contradicted myself.

You carry on then to say;

What you seem to be saying is that if you give more weight to the Christian religion then that religion has more weight then the others

You yourself have placed weight on what Christ has said above as convincing and powerful. Yet you do not believe.

I said that if one wants to convince a nonbeliever he should use the best part of the Christian religion rather then the wager, which is not as powerful. Mark my words: you will never find anyone who will tell you he's a Christian because he's been convinced by the wager. I don't usually like bold assertions, but in this case I feel it's safe.

What is it about Christ that is powerful if He is nothing more than a liar?

I never called him a liar. Indeed, I have no idea whether he was a liar, a lunatic or simply honestly wrong (although I would bet on the latter).

I said, That Pascals Wager is not what is at stake here.

I understand now, but I had trouble understanding what your point was because the wager was what we were all talking about

It is Christ and His Word and you yourself have said as much.

As I said, He doesn't fit neatly into the box of your mind and thus Pascals Wager too must be wrong.

Let's reduce it to the concern of the Christian Faith even as Pascal did.

Either Jesus Christ is a Good man and telling the Truth about who He is. Or He is not good at all but the worst sort of fellow ever. For He has impacted Western Society and the norms of the world for Centuries, to include the lives of Hundreds of millions of peoples even unto death.

Choosing the negative you could not call His teaching powerful nor convincing. However you have chosen the negative and done exactly that.

What gives?

Jesus Christ does give more weight to the Christian Religion.

Peace,

Dave

I may decide to discuss C. S. Lewis' "Lord, lunatic or liar" in the future but I think it deserves to be discussed in a dedicated thread.

I didn't contradict myself: I said that Jesus' teachings are powerful and I present as evidence the great number of people who are following, or trying to follow, those teachings. They are not convincing enough for me, though - I have my reasons. Don't worry, I'll get to this discussion too sooner or later and then we will talk about this as much as we want

[nebula]

I have reasons to believe that Jesus was not God. It's as easy as that. In my eyes He isn't any different than any of the many philosophers that talked about morality and I judge other philosopher's proposals better then Jesus'. That said, Jesus' teachings are certainly very powerful, just look at how many people they convinced. I don't think I contradicted myself.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe He healed the sick and raised the dead as recorded in Scripture?

[Questioner]

I have reasons to believe that Jesus was not God. It's as easy as that. In my eyes He isn't any different than any of the many philosophers that talked about morality and I judge other philosopher's proposals better then Jesus'. That said, Jesus' teachings are certainly very powerful, just look at how many people they convinced. I don't think I contradicted myself.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe He healed the sick and raised the dead as recorded in Scripture?

Since science denies the possibility of such things and since science is the study of regularities, if those things ever happened the conditions enabling them must be very irregular, therefore very improbable. If I lowered the bar so much that I entertain the notion that something so improbable ever happened, then I would have to consider the following explanations for those events:

- Aliens

- Magicians

- Astral forces

- God

- ...

I'm sure you see what I mean. They are not impossible explanations, just very very improbable, like the events they explain. The real "problem" with me (although I don't really think it's a problem at all) is not whether or not I believe in the supernatural; it's just that the supernatural world is something that admits any kind of explanation for any kind of phenomenon, even those that are currently explained sufficiently by science, and choosing one explanation over another is logically impossible without further proof. And what kind of proof could ever possibly convince me that something is a miracle rather than a magician's trick or some very advanced alien technology? Obviously, there is no way to distinguish them without proper scientific testing. So as long as God remains untestable I can only disbelieve. And that's without taking in account my reasons for thinking God cannot possibly exist - in the threads I started I barely scratched the surface.

I hope I answered your questions about believing in miracles

[cjrose]

So are you asking athiests to just believe so they can go to heaven? This is dangerous. Its like when a young beautiful woman marries a really old rich guy. She goes through the few years of hell just to get the money in the end. Sounds a bit selfish... and whats the Christian doctrine? Humility!! The question is who you do it for and can any of you actually say you do it for anyone but yourself? Really think about it. Would you worship God if he said that you wouldn't go to heaven, you would just cease to exist? I honestly don't think so. If Jesus said "Take up your cross" and then said, but even if you do, you will die all the same and just be one with the dirt. So now ask yourself this: Would I still love God and worship him if he didn't benefit me in some way?

I'm sorry but that analogy is extremely judgemental in stating that all young beautiful women who marry old rich men for the mere fact of sacraficing a few years of their life to gain money is nothing but pure gossip and should not even be associated in the same sentence as the character of a Christian.

No, I'm not an young woman who married an older man for money. The thought of that conjures distasteful images and is not a universal opinion not to mention an opinion that is best kept unspoken.

Is it unreasonable of me to ask why ask such questions of what if when the what if's are so obvious if one reads the Bible? That is where our answers are for the believers. I don't need to ask myself why I love the Lord or what does it benefit me.... I just love the Lord unconditionally as He loves us. To ask what our motives is inconcievable to me. I didn't ask myself when I was born again what I can get out of this, but felt humility and indescribable love and desire to do what He deserves.

[AnotherTraveler]

That is where our answers are for the believers. I don't need to ask myself why I love the Lord or what does it benefit me.... I just love the Lord unconditionally as He loves us. To ask what our motives is inconcievable to me. I didn't ask myself when I was born again what I can get out of this, but felt humility and indescribable love and desire to do what He deserves.

What an excellent statement.

[systemstrike_7]

So are you asking athiests to just believe so they can go to heaven? This is dangerous. Its like when a young beautiful woman marries a really old rich guy. She goes through the few years of hell just to get the money in the end. Sounds a bit selfish... and whats the Christian doctrine? Humility!! The question is who you do it for and can any of you actually say you do it for anyone but yourself? Really think about it. Would you worship God if he said that you wouldn't go to heaven, you would just cease to exist? I honestly don't think so. If Jesus said "Take up your cross" and then said, but even if you do, you will die all the same and just be one with the dirt. So now ask yourself this: Would I still love God and worship him if he didn't benefit me in some way?

I'm sorry but that analogy is extremely judgemental in stating that all young beautiful women who marry old rich men for the mere fact of sacraficing a few years of their life to gain money is nothing but pure gossip and should not even be associated in the same sentence as the character of a Christian.

No, I'm not an young woman who married an older man for money. The thought of that conjures distasteful images and is not a universal opinion not to mention an opinion that is best kept unspoken.

Is it unreasonable of me to ask why ask such questions of what if when the what if's are so obvious if one reads the Bible? That is where our answers are for the believers. I don't need to ask myself why I love the Lord or what does it benefit me.... I just love the Lord unconditionally as He loves us. To ask what our motives is inconcievable to me. I didn't ask myself when I was born again what I can get out of this, but felt humility and indescribable love and desire to do what He deserves.

Thats fine!! I'm just saying that this is a bad way to minister to nonbelievers! You should not become a christian to escape hell. That is my view. And can you be completely honest and say that you would still be a christian, even if you aren't promised heaven? Think about it, wouldn't this change ALOT?