|
"Faith in Jeusus Christ is a cognitive, passionate and moral commitment to that which stands up to the scrutiny of the mind, the heart and the conscience." - Ravi Zacharias
I am convinced by the evidence that the Bible is the true, accurate, and reliable witness of the apostles about the person and teachings of Jesus Christ. Miracles by their nature can never be proven scientifically, because they are unique and uncommon events. However, the character of the witnesses who saw them can be evaluated, and every apostle except for John died a martyr's death to testify (not merely about what they believed, as many do) but about what they were in a position know as eyewitnesses.
How easily can one find this many men who are willing to die for something they are in a position to know, if it were not true?
Ummm... I can think of an example but you won't like it. And I don't mean it offensively but yes the Waco cult lead by David Koresh. Those men gave their lives a rather large group of them.
|
"Faith in Jeusus Christ is a cognitive, passionate and moral commitment to that which stands up to the scrutiny of the mind, the heart and the conscience." - Ravi Zacharias
I am convinced by the evidence that the Bible is the true, accurate, and reliable witness of the apostles about the person and teachings of Jesus Christ. Miracles by their nature can never be proven scientifically, because they are unique and uncommon events. However, the character of the witnesses who saw them can be evaluated, and every apostle except for John died a martyr's death to testify (not merely about what they believed, as many do) but about what they were in a position know as eyewitnesses.
How easily can one find this many men who are willing to die for something they are in a position to know, if it were not true?
The Heaven's Gate cult or whatever it was (the hale-bop comet folks who all killed themselves) come to mind. People do insane shit when they adhere to superstition of the supernatural.
|
|
Now I thought about it some more, with the .2% of atheists in prison, and.....well, that statistic might be kinda on the meaningless side too.
So, 23 years old, I go in the Army, they ask me what religion to put on my dogtag. I says, "that's a rather complex question there,..." I don't know what you'd call me back then; a good friend of mine who back then was an Atheist, who I had all these arguments with, and who now goes to church and believes in all that stuff told me I'm a hopeful agnostic.
I was kinda butthurt cos I thought I came up with hopeful agnosticism by myself but anyways.....
I figured, I'm born a Christian, baptised, all that, my stern Missouri Synod Lutheran grandmother might get ahold of my dogtags and see what my dead ass put down for religion on them, and I'm dead, and she's crying at my funeral cos now I'm in hell cos my dogtags sez "hopeful agnostic," I tell them Christian.
Plus, I don't want no bible thumping thug with a buzzcut checking out who all the areligious guys are and putting them on permanent latrine duty.
So, thinking like that, and now you're not a brave atheist internet warrior but maybe a guy going to the hoozegow to get the institutional treatment, I think you might be prone to tribe up as it were, and say, "oh, yeah; I'm a Christian. I went to Sunday School, know about the ark and the guy in the lion's den and all that good stuff" just to keep the odd buzzcut with a Jesus stick and a penchant for tooling around in people's personal records off your back.
However, the character of the witnesses who saw them can be evaluated, and every apostle except for John died a martyr's death to testify (not merely about what they believed, as many do) but about what they were in a position know as eyewitnesses.
We actually have no reliable information about their deaths. That they died martyrs is simply a popular legend. Early Christianity is replete with these, which even a believer should be able to admit. Gospel writing was practically an ancient version of fanfiction.net. Some guy even wrote a gospel according to Pilate. But let's say that's true and every single one of them was martyred. Every last single one, killed for refusing to recant.
How easily can one find this many men who are willing to die for something they are in a position to know, if it were not true?
There's no connection at all between the veracity of someone's beliefs and their preparedness to die for them. People died for Naziism, for Stalin, for Islam, for Buddhism, for nation-states that treated them like dirt, for the idea that if they danced the Ghost Dance the buffalo would come back, in the belief that bullets would bounce off their skin and swords would not cut them. The world is full of fanatics, who are the easiest of all people to lead. People die mistaken. They die lied to. They die crazy. In fact, they often do all three at the same time.
And plenty of times they try to take the rest of us down with them.
The Heaven's Gate cult or whatever it was (the hale-bop comet folks who all killed themselves) come to mind. People do insane s*#! when they adhere to superstition of the supernatural.
That was Heaven's Gate. They knowingly committed mass suicide. Before that, some of them willingly got castrated.
|
|
That was Heaven's Gate. They knowingly committed mass suicide. Before that, some of them willingly got castrated.
The Heaven's Gate cult or whatever it was (the hale-bop comet folks who all killed themselves) come to mind. People do insane s*#! when they adhere to superstition of the supernatural.
I forgot about the castration... *shudder*
I forgot about the castration... *shudder*
That was Heaven's Gate. They knowingly committed mass suicide. Before that, some of them willingly got castrated.
I have a memory for these things. It's how my mind works. :) Details like that often inspire in-game religions when I go about writing my own. Real life is full of memorable grotesqueness to be mined for vivid gaming fun.
|
|
Now I thought about it some more, with the .2% of atheists in prison, and.....well, that statistic might be kinda on the meaningless side too.
So, 23 years old, I go in the Army, they ask me what religion to put on my dogtag. I says, "that's a rather complex question there,..." I don't know what you'd call me back then; a good friend of mine who back then was an Atheist, who I had all these arguments with, and who now goes to church and believes in all that stuff told me I'm a hopeful agnostic.
I was kinda butthurt cos I thought I came up with hopeful agnosticism by myself but anyways.....
I figured, I'm born a Christian, baptised, all that, my stern Missouri Synod Lutheran grandmother might get ahold of my dogtags and see what my dead ass put down for religion on them, and I'm dead, and she's crying at my funeral cos now I'm in hell cos my dogtags sez "hopeful agnostic," I tell them Christian.
Plus, I don't want no bible thumping thug with a buzzcut checking out who all the areligious guys are and putting them on permanent latrine duty.
So, thinking like that, and now you're not a brave atheist internet warrior but maybe a guy going to the hoozegow to get the institutional treatment, I think you might be prone to tribe up as it were, and say, "oh, yeah; I'm a Christian. I went to Sunday School, know about the ark and the guy in the lion's den and all that good stuff" just to keep the odd buzzcut with a Jesus stick and a penchant for tooling around in people's personal records off your back.
Well if asked what religion they are they can again say atheist if they wish nothing is stopping them. I also would not see a reason for asking your religion unless maybe you were on deathrow. Plus if anyone is an atheist generally they wouldn't be shy about saying so. So again if asked even prison by officials I can't see them not saying atheist.
|
It makes that quote that Patrick gave us on FB look to be true doesn't it CJ?I also like this video on atheism.Imagine If All Atheists Left America
Thank you this video and some of its outright lies make me giggle. I needed a laugh.
Why yes it does!
Although I must say, if we HAVE to claim Fred Phelps then it makes me feel good that they have to have a few of those actors.
|
|
There's one mistake I spotted. So far as I know, Stephen Hawking is a deist and lives in the UK. Having never lived here, his leaving would not make much of a difference.
There is more then one mistake, that is the biggest however and yes they are not the only ones to make that mistake.
as well as others
you might also look at the membership list, though by no means comprehensive here.
|
|
It makes that quote that Patrick gave us on FB look to be true doesn't it CJ?I also like this video on atheism.Imagine If All Atheists Left America
Thank you this video and some of its outright lies make me giggle. I needed a laugh.
Why yes it does!
Although I must say, if we HAVE to claim Fred Phelps then it makes me feel good that they have to have a few of those actors.
O yeah well you get to claim the baldwins. Not to mention I don't mind having Seth Mcfarlane in my community, cause "Family Guy" is awesome.
|
|
O yeah well you get to claim the baldwins. Not to mention I don't mind having Seth Mcfarlane in my community, cause "Family Guy" is awesome.It makes that quote that Patrick gave us on FB look to be true doesn't it CJ?I also like this video on atheism.Imagine If All Atheists Left America
Thank you this video and some of its outright lies make me giggle. I needed a laugh.
Why yes it does!
Although I must say, if we HAVE to claim Fred Phelps then it makes me feel good that they have to have a few of those actors.
I don't want the Baldwins. Maybe we can change their minds and make them atheists instead. I will have to try very hard to convert Seth Mcfarlane because yeah, Family Guy is awesome.
as well as others
you might also look at the membership list, though by no means comprehensive here.
Not really a response to the video, is it? Nobody is saying that some scientists are not religious. Nor are we claiming that Roman Catholicism is a hive of creationist villainy. (Though as a theistic religion with a creator god, in fact it is impossible for it to be otherwise. That's what the word means, after all.) The video certainly did not. But the existence of religious scientists does not negate the fact that a healthy majority of scientists are atheists.*
So does that mean that one's scientific ability and education have little to do with one's religious inclinations? Well not really. If that were the case we'd expect a proportion similar to the general population. So for Americans, we'd expect about 90% religious. We do not. What we obviously have here is two variables that are interconnected, and in fact quite heavily so, but not perfectly so. Call it an incompletely dominant trait. Smart people are quite gifted at creating rationalizations for things they came to believe in for rather dumb reasons. I mean, they're smart! :)
*Actually it turns out that being highly educated is quite injurious to religion in general, and to theistic religion in particular, and to conservative theistic religions most of all. Science education is just the strongest type for killing religion.
How easily can one find this many men who are willing to die for something they are in a position to know, if it were not true?
Afghanistan?
Afghanistan?How easily can one find this many men who are willing to die for something they are in a position to know, if it were not true?
Lady Ga Ga fanclub?
|
|
It's me. At least pick a good one.And I'm also pretty sur heathansson made this poster
You have won the interwebz sir.
|
|
as well as others
you might also look at the membership list, though by no means comprehensive here.Not really a response to the video, is it? Nobody is saying that some scientists are not religious. Nor are we claiming that Roman Catholicism is a hive of creationist villainy. (Though as a theistic religion with a creator god, in fact it is impossible for it to be otherwise. That's what the word means, after all.) The video certainly did not. But the existence of religious scientists does not negate the fact that a healthy majority of scientists are atheists.*
So does that mean that one's scientific ability and education have little to do with one's religious inclinations? Well not really. If that were the case we'd expect a proportion similar to the general population. So for Americans, we'd expect about 90% religious. We do not. What we obviously have here is two variables that are interconnected, and in fact quite heavily so, but not perfectly so. Call it an incompletely dominant trait. Smart people are quite gifted at creating rationalizations for things they came to believe in for rather dumb reasons. I mean, they're smart! :)
*Actually it turns out that being highly educated is quite injurious to religion in general, and to theistic religion in particular, and to conservative theistic religions most of all. Science education is just the strongest type for killing religion.
I was not in fact debating it with you, just pointing out some other factors.
Really, just how highly educated do you take me for? You may well be quiet surprised.
Of course I do live in Kansas and am quite ashamed at the level of science education here.
I was not in fact debating it with you, just pointing out some other factors.
Sure, and I was discussing them. I did think you were still referring to the video, since it addresses some of the same. My mistake.
Really, just how highly educated do you take me for? You may well be quiet surprised.
I never gave the subject any thought. Why would I have? If you mean to say that I'm insinuating you must be poorly educated because you are religious, I refer you to what I said about scientists and religion.
Of course I do live in Kansas and am quite ashamed at the level of science education here.
More than Kansas has reason to be ashamed, though it does seem especially devoted to racing to the bottom. Quite the peer group we have, eh?
|
|
More than Kansas has reason to be ashamed, though it does seem especially devoted to racing to the bottom. Quite the peer group we have, eh?
Sad but true.
|
|
It's me. At least pick a good one.And I'm also pretty sur heathansson made this poster
lol, nope that isn't the reason I became atheist (see page 129 of this thread). I have very good reasons behind my personal atheism. But atheism in general, nah I doubt people just convert to argue with people I think thats just a religious wacko viewpoint.
But atheism in general, nah I doubt people just convert to argue with people I think thats just a religious wacko viewpoint.
That would be pretty dumb, since religious people long ago proved they can argue on every conceivable level just among themselves. They've got debates, congresses, wars, nukes, coffee table quarrels. You know, just like everyone else.
I became an atheist, consciously at least, when I realized I just didn't believe in any of this supernatural stuff. (I became a naturalist at the same time, of course. My atheism is a subset of my naturalism.) In fact, it's all awfully silly. I remain one because the arguments offered for the supernatural are so unconvincing. Most of them don't even amount to actual arguments. I suppose a good one could come up eventually, though. If it does, I shall change my mind.
I do not remember Genesis mentioning that god created angels. Did he create them before he created the universe? Does the Bible ever mention where angels come from? Do angels have free will? Why would god love humans above angels?
|
|
I do not remember Genesis mentioning that god created angels. Did he create them before he created the universe? Does the Bible ever mention where angels come from? Do angels have free will? Why would god love humans above angels?
I remember reading somewhere that most angels don't have free will. I think the traditional exceptions were Metatron and Lucifer. I don't know why that'd be the case except with Metatron who used to be mortal.
I don't know why that'd be the case except with Metatron who used to be mortal.
Metatron? Sounds like a Transformer to me... are you sure he didn't used to be a truck? Or a robot?
I don't know why that'd be the case except with Metatron who used to be mortal.Metatron? Sounds like a Transformer to me... are you sure he didn't used to be a truck? Or a robot?
He's positive.
I remember reading somewhere that most angels don't have free will. I think the traditional exceptions were Metatron and Lucifer. I don't know why that'd be the case except with Metatron who used to be mortal.
Did not many angels fall with Lucifer? Were they just servants of Lucifer and unable to remain loyal to god or are they the ones with free will? If they did not have free will, why are they punished for Lucifer's rebellion?
|
|
I remember reading somewhere that most angels don't have free will. I think the traditional exceptions were Metatron and Lucifer. I don't know why that'd be the case except with Metatron who used to be mortal.Did not many angels fall with Lucifer? Were they just servants of Lucifer and unable to remain loyal to god or are they the ones with free will? If they did not have free will, why are they punished for Lucifer's rebellion?
Sorry, just the messenger. I don't understand half of this stuff, and it seems to be inconsistent depending on the quality of the writer (if not outright contradictory). :\
Sorry, just the messenger.
I understand. Just wondering aloud.
|
|
Well, I did google search and found this about angels and free will. Again, just a messenger. I'm not espousing a view here.
|
|
I do not remember Genesis mentioning that god created angels. Did he create them before he created the universe? Does the Bible ever mention where angels come from? Do angels have free will? Why would god love humans above angels?
Quote Wiki
The angels are represented throughout the Christian Bible as a body of spiritual beings intermediate between God and men: "You have made him (man) a little less than the angels..." (Psalms 8:4,5). Some Christians believe that angels are created beings, and use the following passage as evidence: "praise ye Him, all His angels: praise ye Him, all His hosts... for He spoke and they were made. He commanded and they were created..." (Psalms 148:2-5; Colossians 1:16). The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared that the angels were created beings. The Council's decree Firmiter credimus (issued against the Albigenses) declared both that angels were created and that men were created after them. The First Vatican Council (1869) repeated this declaration in Dei Filius, the "Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith". Of note is that the bible describes the function of angels as "messengers" and does not indicate when the creation of angels occurred.
really never studied it to say for myself.
|
|
I do not remember Genesis mentioning that god created angels. Did he create them before he created the universe? Does the Bible ever mention where angels come from? Do angels have free will? Why would god love humans above angels?I erupted fully formed from the belly of Zeus.
What?
That's so funny, I sawed my way out of one of Santa's cankles.
|
|
I do not remember Genesis mentioning that god created angels. Did he create them before he created the universe? Does the Bible ever mention where angels come from? Do angels have free will? Why would god love humans above angels?
As far as I remember from my childhood he did create the angels as servants. And the only specific mention of their creation was Genesis 1:1 where he created the HEAVENS and the earth. The book of Isaiah contains the story of the fall of Lucifer and one third of the heavenly host.
It seems to have a dual meaning one against the king of Babylon and one about the fall of Lucifer.When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has ceased! How his insolence has ceased! … How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit. Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you: "Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who would not let his prisoners go home?
Also only 4 angels are ever given names in the bible Lucifer the fallen angel, Michael the only angel called an archangel in the bible, Gabriel who always seems to be a messenger of sorts, and Raphael who appeared to the prophet Tobit in that old testament apocryphal book.
There also seems to be classes of angel, the only one I am familiar with is archangel which I can only recall being mentioned being attached to Michael. At least in christianity. In the Jewish Talmud there are mentioned 7 archangels so named Uriel, Sariel, Raguel, Remiel, Zadkiel, Jophiel, Haniel, and Chamuel. As well as the head of the angels Metatron. But thats all I know for sure.
|
There also seems to be classes of angel, ...
Here is a link on the heirarchy of angels.
CF, if my memory is correct, most of the references to angels are not found in Genesis. Or if they are, it is more in a generic sense. Isaiah and Ezekial have a fair amount as does Revelation. Overall, there really isn't that much specific information on what exactly angels are, their heirarchy, organization, free will, etc.
At least in christianity. In the Jewish Talmud there are mentioned 7 archangels…
So not all of the Talmud got carried over into the Old Testament. Who decided what made the cut (this is not directed solely at Jeremy, anyone who is willing to field the question)?
Overall, there really isn't that much specific information on what exactly angels are, their heirarchy, organization, free will, etc.
Would it be reasonable to say this is because the Bible is not about angels? It is about god and his relationship to his people.
I wonder why he would create humans after angels. It is not like he could consider angels a mistake necessitating a second creation. And why does man get dominion over animals, but angels, who seem superior to man, do not get dominion over man?
|
At least in christianity. In the Jewish Talmud there are mentioned 7 archangels…So not all of the Talmud got carried over into the Old Testament. Who decided what made the cut (this is not directed solely at Jeremy, anyone who is willing to field the question)?
You may be confusing the Talmud with either the Torah or the Tanakh. The Torah consists of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and constitutes the first section of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible). The Tanakh was more or less included in its entirety in the Christian Bible (including the 5 books of the Torah), as the Old Testament.
The Talmud is a separate text entirely, and is not found in the Christian Bible at all.
I seem to recall that discussions of angels in the Bible are pretty spotty. A lot of the details on angels, their history, heirarchy, etc, comes from non-Biblical sources.and from what I remember are quite contradictory.
canonically and extra-canonically, speaking.
I blame Eusebius for the existence of Lucifer. His latin transation paved away from an adjective description into a proper noun.
|
|
So not all of the Talmud got carried over into the Old Testament. Who decided what made the cut (this is not directed solely at Jeremy, anyone who is willing to field the question)?
I'm going to speak from the gut here and so I could be totally wrong. I think it has to do with a fear of not knowing what is "inspired". A lot of Jesus' teachings were in direct reference to the Talmud and how the Jewish leaders got things wrong. In many ways, it really is a shame. Jesus didn't really say that the Talmud or at least the vast majority was "wrong" but rather that their expansion added or specified things that weren't initially intended. Personally, I feel that there is probably a lot of good insight with the Talmud, but because it isn't "inspired" but rather specifically "man's interpretation" it isn't included and therefore Christians tend to avoid it.
Would it be reasonable to say this is because the Bible is not about angels? It is about god and his relationship to his people.
Probably. Look at a similar idea -- how much is there (really) about "God"? Surprisingly little. At the same time, did they really need detailed information about angelic heirarchy or names of specific angels or who sat where to function appropriately on earth? Would it have made a difference if we did know? Would we just have been jealous because of what we weren't?
Also, you don't necessarily write about things that you feel everyone already believes or knows about. Maybe there were other documents detailing what angels were or were about. (Probably not though.) There are a number of times when I'm reading the Bible where it will mention something that comes across as trivial or kind of an after thought but I'm wanting a lot more detail into what it means.
In the end, the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is largely a collection of stories/ideas that answer "who are we?", "why are we ...?", "where did we come from?" and "where are we going?". It can also be used (portions anyway) as a sort of moral compass. But none of that really has any bearing on whether or not angels exist or what their true function is.
including our closest relative the bonobo
We are equally closely related to Bonobo's and Chimpanzees. Chimp's and Bonobo's have a fairly recent common ancestor and that common ancestor and humans have a common ancestor.
Bonobo......Chimp....Human....Gorilla
...\........./......../......../
....\......./......../......../
.....\...../......../......../
......\.../......../......../
.......\./......../......../
.......{1}......./......../
........\......./......../
.........\...../......../
..........\.../......../
...........\./......../
............{2}....../
.............\....../
...............\.../
................\./
................{3}
.................I
.................I
{1} Common ancestor of Bonobo's and Chimps
{2} Common ancestor of Bonobo's/Chimps and Humans
{3} Common ancestor of Bonobo's/Chimps/Humans and Gorrilla's
Edit:
Grumble - it all lined up perfectly when I typed it out...sigh.
I'm going to speak from the gut here and so I could be totally wrong. I think it has to do with a fear of not knowing what is "inspired". A lot of Jesus' teachings were in direct reference to the Talmud and how the Jewish leaders got things wrong.
As an FYI, the Talmud did not come into existence until after the death of Jesus. Mishnah (oral law) surfaced @ 200 C.E. & the Gemara (discussion of Mishnah) three centuries later. I'm sure you meant the Tanakh.
In the end, the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is largely a collection of stories/ideas that answer "who are we?", "why are we ...?", "where did we come from?" and "where are we going?"
So, in your estimation, why are we and where are we going?
Sorry, just the messenger.I understand. Just wondering aloud.
This is a decent article on the history of the concept. And here's Metatron.
Much of western religious folklore, like the hierarchies of the angels and such, goes back to books not in the present canon but thought very important by the ancients. They did not share modern ideas about canonicity, and certainly didn't see it as a dichotomous distinction. Many books were inspired and hugely popular, and thus very influential, but didn't make the canon. Some of them are canonical in various species of Eastern Christianity (Enoch and Jubilees are canonical in Ethiopian Christianity.) and some don't make it anywhere but were still quite influential back in the day.
Some of this stuff was certainly written as a mystical exercise, and then taken as straight religious reportage by others. Some of it amounts to Biblical fan fiction, which is eternally popular. In fact, there's plenty of that inside the canon too. How many times does the same story get repeated with the names changed? (That is, leaving aside actual full-text repetitions, many of which have been mingled together.)
Oh yeah, and if one really wants to spend some time with it, these are pretty good for introductions:
