[dicknose]

Originally Posted by tklatti

IAnything you can see,touch,smell or hear,has His fingerprints all over it.

Id love to know how you see that.
I look at the sun and see gravity, nuclear fusion, a bunch of processes that we can understand and know what the sun is and how it compares to other stars.
Im impressed by the systems that cause this but also that people through application of their brains have worked out how this happens.

When Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead in 3 days there were 500 eye witnesses that saw Him.

Yes and I trust the word of people who Ive never met and have no idea of their motives!

Where or what do you think happens to you when you die??

I think we simply end.
While the idea of some afterlife is nice, Im also quite happy to think that our time here is all we have. Im happy with that for both myself and for people I know who have died (including my mother)

To show you that there is Someone who cares about you more than you can ever believe!

I dont feel the need to worry about some god loving me.
I have people here who love me and I love them back.
That is enough for me.

I also see that I am far more moral than many supposed Christians.

In general I couldnt pick atheists from believers based on their moral actions towards others. Statistically a murderer is far more likely to be a believer (because in our societies most people believe in god)

Thats a deal that no one should pass up. Hey, it doesnt even cost you a penny. So why do you chose to reject Him,and still continue posting on this thread.

I cant believe in something simply because it has an upside!
Could you believe in Santa - it wont cost you anything and you will get a nice reward?
Believe doesnt work that way.

I beleive you all are missing something deep inside yourselves. (All jokes aside.) God can fill that need...

No - Im not missing something.
As shocking as it might seem, atheists can lead a healthy and rewarding life. They can also be moral and great members of society.
These things are up to each of us as people.
If your belief in God helps you achieve this -then that is good for you (and the rest of us in that your are better for it). But its certainly not a requirement for everyone.

[trippa]

Dicknose,
I'm glad to hear that you didn't have a faith turn-off experience, but I am interested on what your morals are based. Also, I'm curious about your statement that Paul Little's thinking is illogical; could you give me an example?Your friend Dawkins comes across as being quite self-righteous & condecsending, but does have a valid point about children; even today a person would be killed for changing from certain religions, but Christian parents would be very sad if a child abandoned Christ, but would not hurt that child.
I guess you would consider Santa a nice lie, but even Santa is based on a real person. Even the majority of the participants of the Jesus Project concluded that Jesus really existed. Even Jews believe He was a good moral teacher & Muslems believe He was a prophet from God. From what we know, religious leaders realized that He was claiming to be God & the Promised Messiah. We, who became Christians, understand that Jesus was all of these, but if you conclude otherwise unless you lived back then & were an eyewitness, then you might as well discard all the historical documentation that exists. If you don't believe there is a God, then why are you & others wasting their time opposing it; 'you seem to protest too much'.
Just as an art expert can see the artist like Di Vinci in his paintings, but the actual artist is not a part of the paintings, one can see God in nature, but God isn't actually part of nature. Self-delusion can happen to make both believers & non-believers, but I chose the Apostle Paul's hardheaded intellectual approach when he said, "If Christ Jesus was not bodily raise from the dead, then our faith is mere delusion, & we are still under the control & penalty of sin" There are not any real atheists as nobody knows everything, but they are really argumentative agnostics ( 'I don't know if god exists, but I am open to finding out', or 'I don't know if god exists, & I don't really want to know'). God gave us 'free will' even though He knew many would want to do their own thing, & not deal with their sin.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by trippa

but I am interested on what your morals are based.

based on what I feel is right.
Sure the basis is the "golden rule" but that's pretty common in different religions.
I certainly don't base it on a book. I don't think there is anything immoral in being gay.

Also, I'm curious about your statement that Paul Little's thinking is illogical; could you give me an example?

I mentioned above, his logic on the 4 possibilities of Jesus was at best amusing in it's childishness.

He was a good moral teacher

yes he was. But that isn't proof of god or that Jesus was any more than an influential person

If you don't believe there is a God, then why are you & others wasting their time opposing it; 'you seem to protest too much'.

because it has a nasty habit of trying to force it's morals on others.
I can't buy some video games due to someone protecting Christian values!

one can see God in nature

which is more about people wanting to see what isn't there!
It's not proof - it only applies if you already beleive and assume God is there

There are not any real atheists as nobody knows everything, but they are really argumentative agnostics ( 'I don't know if god exists, but I am open to finding out', or 'I don't know if god exists, & I don't really want to know').

same logic says there are no true believers, we can't know for sure. They are just agnostics who pretty sure but playing it safe.
Can't an atheist be as certain as a believer?
Neither truly knows.

God gave us 'free will' even though He knew many would want to do their own thing, & not deal with their sin.

I'm fine with my sin and morals.
I try to be good, am sorry and ashamed when I'm not.
I don't need the threat of he'll to be good.
And I don't a god to forgive me.

I can strive for good because it is the right thing to do.
You don't need a belief in god to live a moral life. Plenty of people and even whole societies have shown that is true.
A religion may help, but no single religion could show it's the only was to a decent life. You can argue it's the only way to some reward promised by the religion!
But convincing people that ghandi wasn't good would be hard to do!

So Jesus might be the only way to heaven, but anyone who claims that only those who follow him are moral, decent people are heading down a path that is terrible. It leads to religious intolerance, bigotry and persecution.

Last comment - how come Christians can be pro death penalty and war, while many atheist are against killing?

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by trippa

...... but remember that if you set your mind not to believe, then no matter how much evidence you see, it won't convince you.

Not that you are correct in that statement but if you were, how does that differ from you theists? There is overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution yet you set your mind not to believe it. There is also excellent evidence that the present universe was created in a so called 'big bang' but you set your mind not to believe it. There is also overwhelming evidence that animals don't speak to humans, that the world was never flooded to cover the highest mountains, that the world is more than 6,000 years old, that people don't walk on water, that you cant feed thousands of people with a few fish and when they have been fed you still have many baskets of food left over, that people don't come back to life once they are dead, that there was never any plagues of Egypt, that there was no Exodus etc etc....but despite all that evidence, you set your mind NOT to believe any of that objective verifiable evidence so that no matter what evidence you see that shows your beliefs to be false, it won't convince you.

Also, if Jesus is not God & God doesn't exist, it is easy for you to prove it by asking Him to reveal Himself to you; what are you scared of, especially if you are right.

Why don't you ask Zoroaster to reveal himself to you; what are you scared of, especially if you are right.

The one true living God has always existed, not only creating time & space, the universe, but also being the God of history.

Such is your belief. What a pity you can show your belief to be anything more than fable, fiction and fraud.

Originally Posted by tklatti

When Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead in 3 days there were 500 eye witnesses that saw Him.

Please provide reliable evidence for your claim. The only evidence you have for that is your Bible. and you can't use the Bible to show that the Bible is true.

Where or what do you think happens to you when you die??

I cease to exist...totally.

The other question is- I dont know any of you, you all don't know me. I've used my time to try and help you.

We don't need help thanks all the same.

To show you that there is Someone who cares about you more than you can ever believe! That you have rejected.But,He is always wanting a relationship with you,and will overlook your rejection.

So you know the mind of your god now?

All He is asking is for you to accept Him into your hearts and ask for forgiveness.

No, that's not all he's asking. He's asking me to crawl on my knees and worship him and to live my life believing that I am a worthless, miserable sinner. Well no thanks, I have more self-respect.

Thats a deal that no one should pass up. Hey, it doesnt even cost you a penny.

If you are wrong, it has cost you a hell of a lot.

So why do you chose to reject Him.....

I don't 'reject' him. I have no belief in him. To reject something, you have to believe that it exists in the first place.

I beleive you all are missing something deep inside yourselves.

Strangely enough, that just what we feel about theists.

Originally Posted by tklatti

Well God did create woman,

So you believe.

Who do you know that witnessed this "bigbang"?

Who do you know that witnessed your god 'creating' the world?

Originally Posted by trippa

....... if you choose to hold onto your sins, you will needlessly end up in hell.

http://www.fireblades.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39561&stc=1&d=12563885 33

[stephen whale]

this question! which came first the chicken or the egg has been going on for hundreds of years.
is this something people get obsessed with over coffee,grass,booze or harder ****?
I dont understand why i ve always noticed additions to this subject(nearly every day) since i first subscribed to fireblade- but i guess that it means a hell of a lot to people to work out if there is any purpose at all to mankinds existence?are we sports/sports tourer bikers all so worried about these age old concerns?

enjoy the rides and debates on jesus,mohammed,buddha,hairy krishna etc people
i have my doubts there is any master supreme of the universe. in Australia we may call him "God you c£$t" when the bike plays up or the woman or boss ditches us etc etc lol god is only there to beg from or abuse huh?
why does there need to be a master/higher power? people are afraid - thats the main reason for faith,blind devotion,humility and servitude? huh ..lol
for me its all tongue and cheek cause im the second coming....you knew that though didnt ya fellas and girls!!!!
Black Sabbath NIB anyone heard that song its a good laugh...ha ha
its important to lighten up all ya bike philosophers/scientists evangelist and all others lost and searching for meaning of life - put on a good monty python or coen brothers film!!!
steve whale
ps. go the mighty Reds!!! 2 nil oh yeah Man Utd needed to lose at Anfield today-about time the reds won a bl£$dy game huh..woohoo people
sport/sex/music/films and bikes are as good as god when they are behaving the right way!!

[KSJNX]

Instead of addressing all of the comments here that have already been posted here, I just want to air my gripe about one of the most common questions I hear from religious people in a debate regarding the existence of God.

I often see or hear a religious person ask someone where their morals are based on if they do not believe in God, almost directly implying to me that without the guidance of religion, a person would have no morals. I assume that this point may be brought to light having to do with the commandments and passages of the bible setting moral guidelines, and the fact that our founding fathers without directly quoting the bible conscripted much of our constitution in regards to our freedoms endowed by the creator, ect ect, But to imply that you must only be able to receive morals from a religion is just ludicrous to me. I do not inflict harm other people not because I am afraid of a higher power punishing me, a deity instilled upon me these morals; but because I find it morally wrong to hurt someone who is not deserving of such treatment. It did not take God for me to do this, It took nothing but logical reason and basic sense of right and wrong, derived partly from the social norm, and partly from the basic instincts of humans. God played no part in this role, and I give no such creator credit, as if I were to choose the immoral path and do wrong there would be no such punishments offered by the creator to punish me. Only the people would stop me, instilled to do so by their own basic morals of right and wrong.

and so ends my rant.

[dicknose]

The rule of "do unto others" is actually a pretty easy thing to understand.

One of the great powers of the human brain is to put yourself in someone elses shoes and imagine how they would act (or react!)
Its not surprising that the most basic moral uses this - my actions to others are how I would like to be treated.

[trippa]

Some of these last comments are valid, but I do detect a wanton blind faith in ourselves & blind faith against God existing. Ghandi said that he would have been a Christian due to Jesus, but it was hypocritical Christians that turned him off; he should have stuck with Jesus. Are you all really oblivious to your self-serving & self righteous perspective? You mistakenly indicate that essentially you acquired your basic moral sense of right & wrong in a vacuum, but in fact you are a product of Greco-Roman & Judio-Christian moral traditions. Also, logical reasoning has its pitfalls as in the case of Nazi doctors who used it, leading to horrible experiments on minorities. There are Asian cultures who espouse a quite different morality. In a way I am more impressed when a non-Westerner accepts Jesus & His moral teachings as he has no moral equivalency. Somebody, please show me the 'golden rule' deliniated in any other religions' writings. Jesus also said that we are to love God with all my being & to love our neighbor as ourselves. Also, Jesus said to love our enemies, so somebody please show me who also said this. Dicknose, I am still waiting for a logical answer to my question about Paul Little's book. A good moral teacher would not lie about himself, so Jesus affirmation that He is God, which the Jewish religious leaders acknowledged He claimed, then it must be true. The first ploy of a would be enemy is to convince his opponent that he doesn't exist or that he doesn't plan to attack them. Unfortunately, your wanton spiritual blindness is just what your enemy, Satan, wants & is laughing at you. Satan wants each person to be a staunch agnostic or to follow a false god; either one will do for his purpose. Jesus talked about the reality of Satan, demons & hell, but He has paid for our sins, so that we won't have to, but He has given us a free will to receive or not to receive His forgiveness & gift of everlasting life with God, who has the free will to throw all sin into hell whether we are holding on to or not holding onto our sins. Sins are a burden & a strong master of us, but we can be set free. A person, who becomes a believer when an infinite God reaching out to him, is probably more sure than a so-called atheist who has to honestly & logically confront infinite information. God's moral code is there to help, not hurt us or impinge on our happiness as he best knows as a loving Father what His children need, promising an abundant life. Nobody has ever perfectly lived up to the morals of his culture, much less Jesus' moral teaching. You say that you strive to do good as it is the right thing to do, but doesn't that lead to some circular reasoning as what really is good; what about unintended consequences. Also, Jesus not only dealt with are moral actions, but also our thought life. All religions basically give you a 'do' & 'don't' list, but Jesus shows you a 'done' list He has accompleted in you behalf which you could never do yourself. If God was to pay for each person to have a new car of his choice, only those who took Him up on the offer would really possess the car. Zoroaster & no other spiritual leader, except for Jesus, has asked to have an intimate, personal relationship, offering eternal life, which you can not earn or buy for yourself.

[steingar]

Morality comes from the fact that we're pack animals, and we all know that within our societies (which we need on a biological basis, we go nuts without company) there is stuff we have to do to coexist with our fellow humans.

What I think is funny is a typical conversation, where someone was telling me that the engine went out on their aircraft, but with the grace of god they managed to safely put it down on an airstrip. It was proof that God existed and cared for their safety. I can't help asking (silently of course) why they weren't totally steamed at God for breaking their engine in the first place.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by trippa

Are you all really oblivious to your self-serving & self righteous perspective? You mistakenly indicate that essentially you acquired your basic moral sense of right & wrong in a vacuum, but in fact you are a product of Greco-Roman & Judio-Christian moral traditions.

No - my morals dont come from a vaccum
They are
- logical, based on "do unto others" which can be argued without any reference to religion but based on the simple assumption that I am a person like all others, hence my actions to others should reflect their actions to me (or at least my desire for others actions to me)
- from example by people I respect, my parents, friends
- sure some probably are in common with religions - probably 2 or 3 of the 10 commandments (dont kill, dont steal)
- from experience, I learn the difference between a "white lie" and a normal lie.

Also, logical reasoning has its pitfalls as in the case of Nazi doctors who used it, leading to horrible experiments on minorities.

Thats just poor morals. Its not a logical problem. Its a problem of base assumptions.
You can have that using religion as well - Christianity endorsed slavery, death penalty, wars, the inquisition.
People use religion to justify lots of horrible things. This is not a logical problem or a fundamental problem of the religion - its bad morals in the person.

Dicknose, I am still waiting for a logical answer to my question about Paul Little's book.

All said above - his logic is so poor as to be laughable.

A good moral teacher would not lie about himself

Ha!
Of cause that is true - but you are now assuming he is a good moral teacher because what he said is true.
You cant say "if A then B" then assume B to prove A.
The logic of "he is moral, hence doesnt lie, hence is the son of God" is wrong. You only know he is more because he doesnt lie, you cant go the other way.

So what if he was someone with some good moral lessons, but lied to make them more impressive??
How can we tell these apart?

The first ploy of a would be enemy is to convince his opponent that he doesn't exist or that he doesn't plan to attack them.

No - the first ploy is to show people that their logic is backwards!
And yes I understand logic - its what I do for a job.

And if what you posted above is your attempt at logic, then I could see why Mr Little can convince (or confuse!) you. I dont mean that as an insult, most people dont understand logic enough to not get these sorts of things wrong. I presume Mr Little just doesnt understand logic, rather than is trying to be deliberately deceitful.

You say that you strive to do good as it is the right thing to do, but doesn't that lead to some circular reasoning as what really is good

It just doesnt define what is good.
But it does say that my nature is to want to do good.
Im not someone who thinks "I shouldnt do this because I will get caught", but rather I tend to think "I shouldnt do this because its not what I think is right".
Im happy that my own pride and self respect are enough to encourage me to strive for my goal of being good. Or if you prefer... "what would my mother think of me!"
I dont need a threat of hell or a reward of heaven to try to aim for my moral goals.

except for Jesus, has asked to have an intimate, personal relationship, offering eternal life, which you can not earn or buy for yourself.

Fair enough - but since I dont believe in him or God its hard to argue that a promise of something from them is going to change my mind.
And as I said above - I dont feel the need for some promise of eternal salvation to be good here and now.
I actually worry about people who are only good because of what their religion promises. The risk here is that if their faith falters, then their morals could go with it. This "house of cards" morals are dangerous. And it seems plenty of people have this, which is why they seem so scared by people who dont believe the same, because they cant understand others morals and worse - worry that anything that conflicts with their beliefs could cause their house of cards to crash down.
Why are people so worried about evolution? If it could be proved without a doubt (which it cant) would their morals change?


Back to my point - religion (and more importantly - no single religion) can not claim to have the correct answers on morals or be the only source of morals.
A religion may have a list of rules, some of which may overlap with other religions or even athiests.
But plenty of the religious rules should only be applied to people of that religion.
When it comes to society in general, if someone wants to argue for a law (as a way of enforcing morals) then they really need to argue based on people, not on religious grounds. What your god says doesnt apply to me, I dont believe in him, I havent agreed to follow him. Freedom of religion means I shouldnt be forced to follow laws based on his religion.
So sure - we might agree murder is wrong, but that should be based on the effect on people (the dead person, their family) not on what a religion says.

Unless you can see that morals dont have to come from religion then its hard to understand how a secular society can agree on laws.
Its also hard to understand how people not of your religion can be moral by a standard that we would all agree on.
If you cant see that others are moral, then you are
Its also useful to be able to see that others may have morals that differ to yours and that doesnt make them bad (well up to an extent!)
And people who have morals based only on a religion, with nothing else backing it up tend to be forced to defend their religion (their house of cards). Anything that threatens their person view of the religion is seem as a huge threat. These sorts of people are dangerous!

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by steingar

What I think is funny is a typical conversation, where someone was telling me that the engine went out on their aircraft, but with the grace of god they managed to safely put it down on an airstrip. It was proof that God existed and cared for their safety. I can't help asking (silently of course) why they weren't totally steamed at God for breaking their engine in the first place.

Or the reverse logic that a crashing plane disproves god.

Ah - but God has a plan!

I know some people who feel that God controls everything, its his plan.
How the heck do you know what God controls, what he leaves to chance, what he leaves to our free-will.
Is a natural disaster something he causes (or just that he choose not to intervene?)
Did God approve of some event involving people - such as sporting match result or even the election of a president?
Ive heard that God approved of Bush, it must be Gods will he got in.
A god that is that controlling gives us no free will. It becomes ridiculous at that level of logic - once you say everything is Gods will then is a silly argument.
Ive even had the "God exists" because the US is the most powerful nation and is a Christian nation.

[trippa]

Dicknose,
You still have not give an example of poor logic in Paul Little's Book, "Beyond Blind Faith". You are correct when you say your morality was not formed in a vacuum as it was influenced by your culture, namely, the Graeco-Roman/ Judeo-Christian tradition. You may have since reached logical conclusions for your basic moral thinking. Have you thus far always lived up to your morality. Like I said before, no person born of man has perfectly followed his own moral code, or God's & that is the rub. A person's moral code might be that it is best 'to put me first, & that I can take anything I want even if murder might be necessary. If he lives that way, is he moral, immoral, or amoral? I wonder if you can use your logic to understand Hilter's morality. Using your great logic, please also comment on these statements ( Jesus as the one, true, living God created you to have great fellowship with Him & everbody else no matter how you are treated. This way if you need help, you have many people to help you, whereby, the other way, you only have yourself.) Even though people sometimes act like a pack of wild animals, God made us social beings who want to relate to others & can even relate to God.
Jesus can not possibly be a good moral teacher & then falsely claim to be God who came into our world. The Jewish leaders thought that Jesus commited blasphemy against God as He a mere man was claiming to be God, not understanding that God could do anything, including becoming a man. You can use logic all you want, but don't hide behind it as spiritual truth may be logical or beyond logic.
Pladecalvo,
I see you are still confusing what events occurred in history with scientific observations, concluding for example that Jesus walking on water can't be correct as overwhelming evidence shows the contrary. With this attitude, science would have not progressed. Many scientific theories that scientists at the time felt was vitually set in stone have later proved to be wrong. Many scoff at scientific discovervies, saying that it can't be right as it was never obverved before. Personally, I love science & find it all very interesting & compelling, but I can see its limitations also. Newton, considered one of the greatest scientists, was a devote Christian & he did not give up God for science or give up scientific inquiry for God. I can not wait for scientists to get it all right, so I am living my life with Jesus, & frankly, I am more convinced that He exists as the only God than you guys exist, even in cyber-space!

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by trippa

Dicknose,
You still have not give an example of poor logic in Paul Little's Book, "Beyond Blind Faith".

Is what I posted above from his book?

Beyond Blind Faith
Is this what you mean?
And the "4 possibilities"" on Jesus is amusing.
liar - how could be a liar if we has such a good moral teacher! Hence he isnt a liar.
self decieved - so he is a lunatic, but he didnt act like one!
[/quote]

His argument that Jesus must be god because there is only 4 possibilities.
The "liar" case is illogical.
As I said before - you cant assume a starting point and then use that to derive something that proves your starting point.
To be moral he must not lie.
You cant then jump to "but of cause he is moral" and hence doesnt lie.
Where is the proof that he is either moral or doesnt lie??
Saying "he is a good moral teacher" doesnt prove he doesnt lie.
As I said - the logic is flawed.

Ditto the "self deceived" - the defense against this is that he didnt act like a lunatic!
You can be self deceived and not a lunatic.
If you agree there is only 1 true god, then everyone else who believes in a different god is self deceived - but most of them arent lunatics (otherwise most of the world would be lunatics)
So how is that a proof that he isnt self deceived?

The guys arguments look like something from a 12 year old.
They arent logical, they show simple (and typical) mistakes of someone trying to be philosophical when they dont understand what they are doing.

So again - why would a read a book by this guy when within 1 minute of reading the above link I see stuff that is simple mistakes and the tell tale signs of someone who doesnt know what they are doing?

Have you thus far always lived up to your morality.

Of cause not. But just because I have made a mistake doesnt mean my moral code or my efforts to obey it are a waste.

Like I said before, no person born of man has perfectly followed his own moral code, or God's & that is the rub

Agreed.
But what difference does it make to other people?
Some steals - does it make a difference if they broke their own morals or broke Christian morals?
In the end you judge people by their actions - not the source of their morals.

A person's moral code might be that it is best 'to put me first, & that I can take anything I want even if murder might be necessary. If he lives that way, is he moral, immoral, or amoral?

I would say that by my morals the person is immoral.
But so what - in our society what matters most is the morals that we are a society have deemed important enough to be law.
Murder is against the law - so the person has acted illegally.

But flip side - being gay isnt against the law.
So what difference does it make to most people how someone else acts, especially in the privacy of their own home?

In my morals I allow for things that I wouldnt do, but I dont care if others do. For example - smoke, drink to excess, use prostitutes.
These things arent against my morals in that I dont think they are wrong.
But they arent things I want to do.

Better explanation - I have morals that I apply to myself (how I want to act) and morals I apply to others (how I want them to act, to me, around me)
Im happy that these arent the same.
That is where a lot of religious people have problems - they dont grasp that its possible to have a moral code you expect for yourself but not others.
One of the 10 commandments is to not worship other Gods. So should you consider someone of another religion immoral - since they have broken one of your moral codes?
If the bible says being gay is wrong (which is arguable but not universally agreed on) - does that apply only to Christians or to everyone?

I wonder if you can use your logic to understand Hilter's morality.

By my standards he was terribly immoral.
Funny - at the time by the churches standard he was acceptable.
Many Christians considered his actions fine, that his actions were what God wanted.

Even though people sometimes act like a pack of wild animals, God made us social beings who want to relate to others & can even relate to God.

Yes we are social creatures, thats most of the reasons for needing morals, to allow us to work in large social groups for the good of the group.

Jesus can not possibly be a good moral teacher & then falsely claim to be God who came into our world.

Ok - if I agree with that - what does that prove?
It doesnt mean you can say "clearly he was a good moral teacher".
It means you must show him to be God to prove he is a good moral teacher.
Not the other way around.

Buddha was clearly a good moral teacher. But he didnt believe in the Jewish god. How could he be moral and so misguided. Hence God doesnt exist.
Gandi also (as well as putting "truth" as the most important thing) - but was a Hindu. Does that disprove Jesus. Clearly Gandi cant be truthful and moral and not accept Jesus as the only way. But he was truthful and moral - hence Jesus is not God.

See - thats the logic you are using. And it can easily be thrown the other way to disprove Jesus.

You can use logic all you want, but don't hide behind it as spiritual truth may be logical or beyond logic.

Im not saying logic can be applied to solving the problem.
Just pointing out that the logic used by Little (and it seems yourself) is wrong. Hence the logic argument that Jesus must be God is wrong.
That doesnt disprove the idea that Jesus is God - it just shows that Littles proof is wrong.

Again - if you dont understand that concept then you need to learn a bit more about logical arguments.

I see you are still confusing what events occurred in history with scientific observations, concluding for example that Jesus walking on water can't be correct as overwhelming evidence shows the contrary.

I think the point is that we cant take the statement "Jesus walked on water" as a fact. Sure there are witnesses, but again that doesnt make it fact.
It could be any number of reasons
- a trick
- witnesses where mistaken
- people recording the event (in gospels) lied

Without "independent" verification its hard to believe stories told by a vary biased source.
Since this is also well in history its hard to repeat it.
Thats the point in science - things are accepted as "fact" when they can be tested by people, not just believe others stories.

Many scientific theories that scientists at the time felt was vitually set in stone have later proved to be wrong. Many scoff at scientific discovervies, saying that it can't be right as it was never obverved before.

Yes definitely.
But because they could observe and repeat tests and do things for themselves the old theories were rejected and new ones came in.
While scientists might have "belief" in a theory, they are willing to test this belief by experiment and evidence. The belief is not set in stone because someone said so 2,000 years ago.

That is the complete opposite of religion.
We are to accept things like Jesus walked on water because someone tells us its true - except it because you are told to.
You can check it yourself, see it happen, speak to anyone who saw it.

That is why science progresses - because any "fact" or "theory" is always open to challenge.
That is the opposite of blind belief and taking something like the bible as fact and rejecting anything that disagrees with it.

Newton, considered one of the greatest scientists, was a devote Christian & he did not give up God for science or give up scientific inquiry for God.

He also lives several hundred years ago when basically everyone was religious. He also believed in alchemy, changing one chemical into another.
Maybe since he got that wrong, it proves he was also wrong about god??

Since Darwin came along it gave an explanation for where humans came from. Until then religions greatest claim was that God directly created man and with no reasonable alternative it was a good reason to believe in god.
But it didnt disprove god - just gave a very creditable alterative.
And since then most of the great minds of science have been atheist - Einstein and Hawking are probably the best two examples.
And both incorrectly claimed as theist since they refer to "god" at times, but their use of the word "god" is in a way that is interchangeable with "the laws of physics"
Einstein - "god does not play dice" - "the laws of physics dont act randomly"
Both have said they dont believe in a "personal god" ie one that plays a role in human society. That is completely incompatible with a "religious god"

I am more convinced that He exists as the only God than you guys exist, even in cyber-space!

Which just about sums it up.
Your ability to sort between what is real and what is possible is not very good. Seriously - if you are more convinced that god exists than I do - then you really do have a problem. You can easily check I exist, it requires no faith. You could call me or heck spend about $2000 and fly over and say hello. It would not be hard to "prove" to not only yourself, but anyone else, that I exist.
But if you could do anything to actually prove God exists - that would be the biggest event in the history of mankind. But you cant do it, you cant even explain how it could be done.

That you are more sure of something that has so far been unprovable and requires faith shows a serious flaw in your ability to comprehend reality.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by dicknose

Which just about sums it up.
Your ability to sort between what is real and what is possible is not very good. Seriously - if you are more convinced that god exists than I do - then you really do have a problem. You can easily check I exist, it requires no faith. You could call me or heck spend about $2000 and fly over and say hello. It would not be hard to "prove" to not only yourself, but anyone else, that I exist.
But if you could do anything to actually prove God exists - that would be the biggest event in the history of mankind. But you cant do it, you cant even explain how it could be done.

That you are more sure of something that has so far been unprovable and requires faith shows a serious flaw in your ability to comprehend reality.

BRAVO!

Originally Posted by trippa

Somebody, please show me the 'golden rule' deliniated in any other religions' writings. Jesus also said that we are to love God with all my being & to love our neighbor as ourselves. Also, Jesus said to love our enemies, so somebody please show me who also said this.

Here ya go mate!

Buddha: If you do not tend to one another then who is there to tend to you? Whoever who would tend me, he should tend the sick.
Jesus: Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these, so you have done it unto me.

Buddha: Consider others as yourself.
Jesus: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Buddha: Hatred do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love; this is an eternal truth... Overcome anger by love, Overcome evil by good. overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth.
Jesus: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. From anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again.

Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words."
Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also.

So you see trippa, your Jesus is not unique in his teachings. What he was saying had already been said by the Buddha 500 years earlier. Christianity copied the teachings of it's 'Christ' from the Buddha just like it copied the attributes of it's 'Christ' from preceding mythological man-god stories.

[dicknose]

Watched an interesting movie in which a guy claims to have lived for many thousand years.
He says he studied under Buddha and then later tried to spread his teachings but people starting claiming he was god. So he faked his death (which he had done before, when you live that long you have to move on a lot). After being crucified and buried he tried to sneak away a few days later, but was caught!

While I think this is even less likely than Jesus being god, it was an interesting spin on jesus.

[vertical954rr]

Theosophical & Christian mystical teachings consider their Master Jesus a type of Buddha ..

Master Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Studies in Occult Philosophy, Purucker, Q & A (#23)

Gnostic Forum > Nde, Buddha, And Jesus Christ.



here is a book on parallel sayings:

Amazon.com: Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings (Seastone series) (9781569751695): Marcus Borg, Jack Kornfield: Books

[pladecalvo]

There is much speculation that, during the 'missing years' that this Jesus character was away in India practising Buddhism.

[dr256]

Live Long and Prosper Dicknose !!!

[GP Paul]

Even Evolution Theory doesn't negate Divine Intervention. What if God put fossils in place? Personally, I believe in science, but I'm one of God's creations, right, or not?
"I think, therefore I am, I think" Descartes, the bastard, (with addition).

[stephen whale]

dicknose
indeed
dicknose
jesus dicknose jesus chirst our saviour!!
and more
dicknose
oh my dicknose

thanks for reading my poetry
named dicknose the jesus!!!

[dicknose]

Im not the messiah....

and that was an interesting bit of poetry.

[regener8ed]

The internet: where everyone wants to be heard an no one wants to listen. I am always reticent to engage in topical debates in this 'virtual' format. It seldom changes anyone's opinion; if anything, it usually hardens them and divisions become so pronounced that the debate becomes reduced to meaningless personal insults hurled over peripheral topics. As such, I have ignored this thread for some time and do not quite know why I find myself here now. Suppose I'll blame insomnia.

I seem to remember a school project that asked the students to take an object in its current condition and invent a storyline to explain how it came to be in that condition. I believe it was called "Creative Writing."

But it is another matter entirely to take the narrative account of what has happened to something and then formulate an image of what it should be like in its current condition. One of the common methods I encounter in the rejection of the Biblical narrative of creation is that people avoid the latter approach: they take what is currently observed and work backwards; discounting anything that doesn't jive with their assumptions of events that would have led to current conditions. However, if you take the Biblical narrative at face value and ask "what sort of current conditions would you expect to observe?" my position is that the explanation God's Word provides is perfectly logical and consistent with what we find today. Is it not ironic that even atheistic origins' storylines generally revolve around 1) ordered life processes on 2) a planet that has undergone a massive global catastrophe? Even some things are beyond the ability to 'fictionalize' away.

Similarly, working from the same logical direction with macro-evolutionary concepts (taking the premise of the big-bang for instance) presents so many hurdles (eg: thermodynamics, genetics, the fossil record) to arrive at the same currently observable conditions, that the inexplicable gaps must be accepted by what I can only describe as "faith".

The Biblical account of earth history is generally beaten down by the drums of the accepted popular opinion, not by an honest interrogation of the evidence.

[trippa]

Thank you for your lesson in logic, but you seem to miss the point that none of your explanations have adequetely refuted Jesus as the God of the universe who came into time & space. Many educated people think that Jesus was a good & moral person besides being a excellent spiritual & moral teacher. The only reason for him to lie is if his morals allowed it. There is no indication that He had to apologize for anything, including lying. Also, He spent much time proclaiming the importance of the truth. Nobody had caught him in a lie or has proven that Jesus was an evil man, except for the so-called religious leaders of his day who tended to be oppressive toward the common people. No other moral teacher in history claimed to be God or claimed to be perfect. When I said that I was more convinced that Jesus exists & is God than you exist, it was in the form of one of Jesus' sayings("If you don't hate your parents, you are unworthy of me"), whereby he does not mean you are to literally hate them, but emphazies extent of the love & devotion we are to have toward God. I know that you actually exist, but I am much more convinced that Jesus is the only true God. Jesus has proved it over & over again in my life when He says I am the only Way, the Truth, & the Life, nobody comes to the Father but by Me!
Many people have claimed to be messengers of god, but only Jesus claimed to be God & backed it up. There is nothing Jesus did or said that the people concluded that he must be a lunatic or even self deceived. But of course , you think that you are much more intelligent then the common folk of Jesus day. But are you guilty of blind faith that Jesus is not God?
Paul Little is not assuming a starting point to prove a starting point, but rather uses a proposition to logically disprove that assumption. The way Jesus lived & conducted himself shows that he was moral, but also said ones good morals can't get you into heaven. Jesus condemned sin & the history of the human race has only proved that we have a sin nature. Your failure to always obey your moral code or God's rules has condemned you & anyone else for that matter. If you say, 'well, no one is perfect', then Hitler can get by on that same excuse! By the way, self-deceived only means one is mistaken about himself, not deceived about God. If only we can be judged by our morals insteads of our actions. Since all have a sin nature, then all stand condemned by a righteous & holy God; He punishes the guilty, but as of God of love, He paid the penalty for our sin once & for all. It is like a judge out of justice sentencing a man to death for murder, but then, taking off his black robes, pushes the man aside & suffers the penalty. Ghandi had a very high opinion of Jesus Christ, but based his religious decision on a good lifestyle, not the claims of Christ on his life.
If you are dismissing eyewitness testimony about Jesus, you might as well not allow witnesses to testify in court also. If you are hanging over an abyss attached to chains of various sizes, does it really matter what size breaks? The abyss represents hell & the chain links are God's spiritual laws. When you are more scared of violating society's laws then God's laws, then you really don't have a clue about life & eternity.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by trippa

Thank you for your lesson in logic, but you seem to miss the point that none of your explanations have adequetely refuted Jesus as the God of the universe who came into time & space.

Not trying to refute Jesus, just the very poor logic that is "proving" he is God.

Disproving a proof doesnt show that the reverse is true. (again - logic!)

Many educated people think that Jesus was a good & moral person besides being a excellent spiritual & moral teacher. The only reason for him to lie is if his morals allowed it. There is no indication that He had to apologize for anything, including lying.
Also, He spent much time proclaiming the importance of the truth. Nobody had caught him in a lie or has proven that Jesus was an evil man, except for the so-called religious leaders of his day who tended to be oppressive toward the common people. No other moral teacher in history claimed to be God or claimed to be perfect.

None of which "proves" that he wasnt lying or deluded.
Both are still reasonable possibilities.
And while these possibilities would mean he isnt god, they dont change the meaning of most of his moral messages.
You cant say "his message was moral" as proof that he doesnt lie.

When I said that I was more convinced that Jesus exists & is God than you exist, it was in the form of one of Jesus' sayings("If you don't hate your parents, you are unworthy of me"), whereby he does not mean you are to literally hate them, but emphazies extent of the love & devotion we are to have toward God. I know that you actually exist, but I am much more convinced that Jesus is the only true God. Jesus has proved it over & over again in my life when He says I am the only Way, the Truth, & the Life, nobody comes to the Father but by Me!

So you know I exist, but are still "more convinced" of Jesus.
So you are allowing some possibility that I dont exist?

Or simply stating that Jesus is more important than me?
I would expect someone who believes in Jesus to rate his as more important than me (me ego is not that big).
But anyone who is more convinced that Jesus is god than I exist has a serious problem. As I said before - one is based on believe and cant be proven, the other can easily be proven (unless you want to get into silly situations like "the matrix" or that no one else exists and you are dreaming us all)

Do you have any room for doubt of God or Jesus?
Is there any slim possibility, say 1 in a million, that you might be wrong?

Im always interested to see people who 100% believe in a religion and claim they have no doubt, that it is absolutely true.
Yet there will be people of many different religions with this same amount of confidence. But at most only 1 group can be right.
So you see - there are hundreds of millions of people who would have the same confidence as you - but we know are wrong (well we cant know which ones are wrong, but we know that most of them are wrong!)

How can people be that certain when logic says most of them are wrong?
This clearly is a flaw in humans that most can be utterly convinced that something is true but they have no way of proving it. And logic shows that most must be wrong.

Its even more amazing that when you explain this, they are still 100% sure that they are right and its the other people who are wrong.
This is called "delusion".
Clearly most of the world holds a religious delusion.
But we cant tell by examining the people which hold a true belief and which are delusional.
The delusional dont act crazy. Do Buddist, Hindus, Muslims act crazy (ok - some do!) Do athiests act crazy? (again - some do!)

The whole argument that says "Jesus didnt act crazy, hence he wasnt delusional, hence what he says is true" just doesnt hold.
Most delusional people dont act crazy. Except in their holding a delusional belief!

Do you agree that people of other religions hold their belief as constant as Christians? Do they act delusional in a way we can see and hence decide that their belief is wrong?

There is nothing Jesus did or said that the people concluded that he must be a lunatic or even self deceived. But of course , you think that you are much more intelligent then the common folk of Jesus day. But are you guilty of blind faith that Jesus is not God?

Of cause its "blind faith" about Jesus - I never met him.
Neither has anyone else.

Paul Little is not assuming a starting point to prove a starting point, but rather uses a proposition to logically disprove that assumption.

He thinks he used logic.
But his logic is flawed and its easy to see where.

"jesus is moral - hence doesnt lie" - is not logic.
"jesus wasnt crazy - hence not delusional" - is not logic.

The way Jesus lived & conducted himself shows that he was moral

But doesnt prove he wasnt lying!

You cant say "he doesnt lie because he is moral" because the only way you could prove he was moral was to also prove he doesnt lie.
Circular argument.

By the way, self-deceived only means one is mistaken about himself, not deceived about God.

Sure - its a possibility that god exists but Jesus wasnt actually god.

Ghandi had a very high opinion of Jesus Christ, but based his religious decision on a good lifestyle, not the claims of Christ on his life.

But makes you wonder why he didnt think he was the only way.

If you are dismissing eyewitness testimony about Jesus, you might as well not allow witnesses to testify in court also.

Ha - thats funny!
The point of court is you can examine witnesses.

Many cultures have stories passed down about how the world started.
Your logic says these eyewitness stories must be fact.

Why should I believe the bible stories anymore than stories by native americans or australian aborigines?

They all claim their stories are true - but that doesnt mean they are.

When you are more scared of violating society's laws then God's laws, then you really don't have a clue about life & eternity.

Well its hard to be scared about laws from some people claiming they are in the name of a god that you dont believe in.
I might as well be scared of freddy kruger coming to get me.

Societies laws are what matter.
If you want to impose other rules on YOURSELF, then thats fine.
But trying to say others should follow laws of your god is not right.

Would you be happy is Muslim law was forced on you?
Would a Muslim telling you that they believe 100% convince you that their laws are the only true laws of God and should be obeyed?

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by regener8ed

However, if you take the Biblical narrative at face value and ask "what sort of current conditions would you expect to observe?" my position is that the explanation God's Word provides is perfectly logical and consistent with what we find today. Is it not ironic that even atheistic origins' storylines generally revolve around 1) ordered life processes on 2) a planet that has undergone a massive global catastrophe? Even some things are beyond the ability to 'fictionalize' away.

The bible doesnt have an ordered life process - it has a single step of creating life in its current form. There is an order to when they were created.

But evidence points to evolution.
Sure its possible to say "its all just the way it is as God created it that way" - but that is not evidence.
Proof by saying "you cant disprove" and yet offering no possibility to disprove - is not good.

So the question is
- what evidence would disprove the bible?
A similar question for evolution and big bang is easily answered.
There are plenty of things that could show these wrong.

So do you think Noah took kangaroos on the ark?
Or did Australia (the flattest, lowest continent) not go under in the flood.
And Australian aboriginals claim to have been in Australia (and supported by evidence) for longer than the most Creationists claim that the universe has existed. Are they wrong, are they descendants of Noah?

Similarly, working from the same logical direction with macro-evolutionary concepts (taking the premise of the big-bang for instance) presents so many hurdles (eg: thermodynamics, genetics, the fossil record) to arrive at the same currently observable conditions, that the inexplicable gaps must be accepted by what I can only describe as "faith".

Ah - the god of gaps!
Sure there are gaps, there always will be.
But showing gaps exists doesnt prove that god is in the gaps.

What is impressive about sciences explaination for the big bang and evolution is that there is vast amount of evidence to support it. Sure there are lots of gaps, but there are also lots and lots of evidence!
Gaps dont show a scientific theory is wrong. Evidence that contradicts it shows its wrong.

The biblical account is not the same. There isnt any good evidence, nothing that the biblical account says "we should find this" and when we look we find it.
Of cause the biblical account wasnt written as science!

There has never been any evidence put forward to support the biblical account. All attempts at creationism over evolution has relied on gaps. Showing that the other guy has bits missing doesnt automatically make you right or even worthwhile of being considered an alternative.
You need to show what supports you and that the total amount supporting you is more than the other guy.
Claiming the gaps is poor science!

Its like playing baseball and losing 5-0 and saying "the other team could have scored 20, they didnt, hence we win since 15 is bigger than 5"

The Biblical account of earth history is generally beaten down by the drums of the accepted popular opinion, not by an honest interrogation of the evidence.

Except when it comes to things like the age of the Earth (or the moon or the universe)
There is very good evidence that the Earth is older than then biblical account.
Of cause God could have created everything in such a way that this evidence just looked that way.

It sounds like you have looked at this...
so what is "an honest interogation of the evidence" - give a couple of bits of evidence that point to the Genesis story being true.
Something, anything, that we would expect to see due to the bible that would be considered evidence.

And I know you said you dont like internet talk on topics like this since it gets personal. I do try to avoid that.
But can I ask - what sort of science education you have?
I do think its relevent when people are discussing possible explainations. Certainly its hard to argue against a theory that you dont understand (ok - its easy to do, hard to do it effectively!)

[trippa]

Maybe Jesus teachings about morality were also lies or delusional as nobody , except him maybe, has been able to live up to his moral or ethical standards, such as loving your enemies & thinking evil thoughts about anybody is evil. Many religious leaders have spoken wise & moral sayings & have claimed to be prophets of God, but they don't even claim to be God, which Jesus did & backed it up. The Jewish leaders knew that a man claiming to be God is blasphemous & could never be accomplished by a human being, but didn't understand that Jesus is God & came into our world as a man! Jesus was moral & backed it up by his life & by miracles he performed. Here is Paul Little's for your logical or others consideration:Is Jesus God? Here is a picture of the life of Jesus Christ and why it's not blind faith to believe in him...
Beyond Blind Faith
By Paul E. Little
It is impossible for us to know conclusively whether God exists and what He is like unless He takes the initiative and reveals Himself. We must know what He is like and His attitude toward us. Suppose we knew He existed, but that He was like Adolf Hitler -- capricious, vicious, prejudiced, and cruel. What a horrible realization that would be!
We must scan the horizon of history to see if there is any clue to God's revelation. There is one clear clue. In an obscure village in Palestine, almost 2,000 years ago, a Child was born in a stable. Today the entire world is still celebrating the birth of Jesus.
He lived in obscurity until He was thirty, and then began a public ministry that lasted three years. It was destined to change the course of history. He was a kindly person and we're told that "the common people heard Him gladly." And, "He taught as One who had authority, and not as their teachers of the Law" (Matthew 7:29).
The Life of Jesus Christ. Is Jesus God?
It soon became apparent, however, that He was making shocking and startling statements about Himself. He began to identify Himself as far more than a remarkable teacher or prophet. He began to say clearly that He was God. He made His identity the focal point of His teaching. The all-important question He put to those who followed Him was, "Who do you say I am?" When Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:15-16), Jesus was not shocked, nor did He rebuke Peter. On the contrary, He commended him!
He made the claim explicitly, and His hearers got the full impact of His words. We are told, "The Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18).
On another occasion he said, "I and My Father are One." Immediately the Jews wanted to stone Him. He asked them for which good work they wanted to kill Him. They replied, "We are not stoning You for any of these but for blasphemy, because You, a mere man, claim to be God" (John 10:33).
Jesus clearly claimed attributes which only God has. When a paralyzed man was let down through the roof wanting to be healed by Him, He said, "Son, your sins are forgiven you." This caused a great to-do among the religious leaders, who said in their hearts, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
At the critical moment when His life was at stake, the high priest put the question to Him directly: "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy" (Mark 14:61-64).
So close was His connection with God that He equated a person's attitude to Himself with the person's attitude toward God. Thus, to know Him was to know God (John 8:19; 14:7). To see Him was to see God (12:45; 14:9). To believe in Him was to believe in God (12:44; 14:1). To receive Him was to receive God (Mark 9:37). To hate Him was to hate God (John 15:23). And to honor Him was to honor God (5:23).


As we face the claims of Christ, there are only four possibilities. He was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend, or the Truth. If we say He is not the Truth, we are automatically affirming one of the other three alternatives, whether we realize it or not.
(1) One possibility is that Jesus lied when He said He was God -- that He knew He was not God, but deliberately deceived His hearers to lend authority to His teaching. Few, if any, seriously hold this position. Even those who deny His deity affirm that He was a great moral teacher. They fail to realize those two statements are a contradiction. Jesus could hardly be a great moral teacher if, on the most crucial point of His teaching -- His identity -- He was a deliberate liar.
(2) A kinder, though no less shocking possibility, is that He was sincere but self-deceived. We have a name for a person today who thinks he is God. That name is lunatic, and it certainly would apply to Christ if He were deceived on this all-important issue. But as we look at the life of Christ, we see no evidence of the abnormality and imbalance we find in a deranged person. Rather, we find the greatest composure under pressure.
(3) The third alternative is that all of the talk about His claiming to be God is a legend -- that what actually happened was that His enthusiastic followers, in the third and fourth centuries, put words into His mouth He would have been shocked to hear. Were He to return, He would immediately repudiate them.
The legend theory has been significantly refuted by many discoveries of modern archeology. These have conclusively shown that the four biographies of Christ were written within the lifetime of contemporaries of Christ. Some time ago Dr. William F. Albright, world-famous archaeologist & professor at Johns Hopkins University, said that there was no reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written later than A.D. 70. For a mere legend about Christ, in the form of the Gospel, to have gained the circulation and to have had the impact it had, without one shred of basis in fact, is incredible.
For this to have happened would be as fantastic as for someone in our own time to write a biography of the late John F. Kennedy and in it say he claimed to be God, to forgive people's sins, and to have risen from the dead. Such a story is so wild it would never get off the ground because there are still too many people around who knew Kennedy. The legend theory does not hold water in the light of the early date of the Gospel manuscripts.
(4) The only other alternative is that Jesus spoke the truth. From one point of view, however, claims don't mean much. Talk is cheap. Anyone can make claims. There have been others who have claimed to be God. I could claim to be God, and you could claim to be God, but the question all of us must answer is, "What credentials do we bring to substantiate our claim?" In my case it wouldn't take you five minutes to disprove my claim. It probably wouldn't take too much more to dispose of yours. But when it comes to Jesus of Nazareth, it's not so simple. He had the credentials to back up His claim. He said, "Even though you do not believe Me, believe the evidence of the miracles, that you may learn and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father" (John 10:38).
Is Jesus God? Some Points to Consider
First, His moral character coincided with His claims. Many asylum inmates claim to be celebrities or deities. But their claims are belied by their characters. Not so with Christ. He is unique -- as unique as God.
Jesus Christ was sinless. The caliber of His life was such that He was able to challenge His enemies with the question, "Can any of you prove Me guilty of sin?" (John 8:46). He was met by silence, even though He addressed those who would have liked to point out a flaw in His character.
We read of the temptations of Jesus, but we never hear of a confession of sin on His part. He never asked for forgiveness, though He told His followers to do so.
This lack of any sense of moral failure on Jesus' part is astonishing in view of the fact that it is completely contrary to the experience of the saints and mystics in all ages. The closer men and women draw to God, the more overwhelmed they are with their own failure, corruption, and shortcomings. The closer one is to a shining light, the more he realizes his need of a bath. This is true also, in the moral realm, for ordinary mortals.
It is also striking that John, Paul, and Peter, all of whom were trained from earliest childhood to believe in the universality of sin, all spoke of the sinlessness of Christ: "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22).
Pilate, no friend of Jesus, said, "What evil has He done?" He implicitly recognized Christ's innocence. And the Roman centurion who witnessed the death of Christ said, "Surely He was the Son of God" (Matthew. 27:54).
Second, Christ demonstrated a power over natural forces which could belong only to God, the Author of these forces.
He stilled a raging storm of wind and waves on the Sea of Galilee. In doing this He provoked from those in the boat the awestruck question, "Who is this? Even the wind and waves obey Him!" (Mark 4:41) He turned water into wine, fed 5,000 people from five loaves and two fish, gave a grieving widow back her only son by raising him from the dead, and brought to life the dead daughter of a shattered father. To an old friend He said, "Lazarus, come forth!" and dramatically raised him from the dead. It is most significant that His enemies did not deny this miracle. Rather, they tried to kill Him. "If we let Him go on like this," they said, "everyone will believe in Him" (John11:48).
Third, Jesus demonstrated the Creator's power over sickness and disease. He made the lame to walk, the dumb to speak, and the blind to see. Some of His healings were of congenital problems not susceptible to psychosomatic cure. The most outstanding was that of the blind man whose case is recorded in John 9. Though the man couldn't answer his speculative questioners, his experience was enough to convince him. "One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!" he declared. He was astounded that his friends didn't recognize this Healer as the Son of God. "Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind," he said (John 9:25, 32). To him the evidence was obvious.
Fourth, Jesus' supreme credential to authenticate His claim to deity was His resurrection from the dead. Five times in the course of His life He predicted He would die. He also predicted how He would die and that three days later He would rise from the dead and appear to His disciples.
Surely this was the great test. It was a claim that was easy to verify. It either happened or it didn't.
Both friends and enemies of the Christian faith have recognized the resurrection of Christ to be the foundation stone of the faith. Paul, the great apostle, wrote, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14). Paul rested his whole case on the bodily resurrection of Christ. Either He did or He didn't rise from the dead. If He did, it was the most sensational event in all of history.
God Does Not Ask for Blind Faith
If Christ rose, we know with certainty that God exists, what He is like, and how we may know Him in personal experience. The universe takes on meaning and purpose, and it is possible to experience the living God in contemporary life.

On the other hand, if Christ did not rise from the dead, Christianity is an interesting museum piece -- nothing more. It has no objective validity or reality. Though it is a nice wishful thought, it certainly isn't worth getting steamed up about. The martyrs who went singing to the lions, and contemporary missionaries who have given their lives in Ecuador and Congo while taking this message to others, have been poor deluded fools.
The attack on Christianity by its enemies has most often concentrated on the Resurrection because it has been clearly seen that this event is the crux of the matter. A remarkable attack was the one contemplated in the early '30s by a young British lawyer. He was convinced that the Resurrection was mere fable and fantasy. Sensing that it was the foundation stone of the Christian faith, he decided to do the world a favor by once and for all exposing this fraud and superstition. As a lawyer, he felt he had the critical faculties to rigidly sift evidence and to admit nothing as evidence which did not meet the stiff criteria for admission into a law court today.
However, while Frank Morrison was doing his research, a remarkable thing happened. The case was not nearly as easy as he had supposed. As a result, the first chapter in his book, Who Moved the Stone? is entitled, "The Book That Refused to Be Written." In it he described how, as he examined the evidence, he became persuaded against his will, of the fact of the bodily resurrection of Christ.
The Death of Jesus
Jesus' death was by public execution on a cross. The government said it was for blasphemy. Jesus said it was to pay for our sin. After being severely tortured, Jesus' wrists and feet were nailed to a cross where He hung, eventually dying of slow suffocation. A sword was thrust into His side to confirm His death.
The body of Jesus was then wrapped in linens covered with approximately 100 pounds of gummy-wet spices. His body was placed in a solid rock tomb A 1 1/2- 2 ton boulder was rolled by levers to secure the entrance. Because Jesus had publicly said He would rise from the dead in three days, a guard of trained Roman soldiers was stationed at the tomb. And an official Roman seal was affixed to the tomb entrance declaring it government property.
In spite of all this, three days later the body was gone. Only the grave linens remained, in the form of the body, but caved in. The boulder formerly sealing the tomb was found up a slope, some distance away from the tomb.
Was Jesus' Resurrection Just a Story?
The earliest explanation circulated was that the disciples stole the body! In Matthew 28:11-15, we have the record of the reaction of the chief priests and the elders when the guards gave them the infuriating and mysterious news that the body was gone. They gave the soldiers money and told them to explain that the disciples had come at night and stolen the body while they were asleep. That story was so false that Matthew didn't even bother to refute it! What judge would listen to you if you said that while you were asleep you knew it was your neighbor who came into your house and stole your television set? Who knows what goes on while he's asleep? Testimony like this would be laughed out of any court.
Furthermore, we are faced with a psychological and ethical impossibility. Stealing the body of Christ is something totally foreign to the character of the disciples and all that we know of them. It would mean that they were perpetrators of a deliberate lie which was responsible for the deception and ultimate death of thousands of people. It is inconceivable that, even if a few of the disciples had conspired and pulled off this theft, they would never have told the others.
Each of the disciples faced the test of torture and martyrdom for his statements and beliefs. Men and women will die for what they believe to be true, though it may actually be false. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie. If ever a man tells the truth, it is on his deathbed. And if the disciples had taken the body, and Christ was still dead, we would still have the problem of explaining His alleged appearances.
A second hypothesis is that the authorities, Jewish or Roman, moved the body! But why? Having put guards at the tomb, what would be their reason for moving the body? Also, what about the silence of the authorities in the face of the apostles' bold preaching about the Resurrection in Jerusalem? The ecclesiastical leaders were seething with rage, and did everything possible to prevent the spread of this message that Jesus rose from the dead. They arrested Peter and John and beat and threatened them, in an attempt to close their mouths.
But there was a very simple solution to their problem. If they had Christ's body, they could have paraded it through the streets of Jerusalem. In one fell swoop they would have successfully smothered Christianity in its cradle. That they did not do this bears eloquent testimony to the fact that they did not have the body.
Another popular theory has been that the women, distraught and overcome by grief, missed their way in the dimness of the morning and went to the wrong tomb. In their distress they imagined Christ had risen because the tomb was empty. This theory, however, falls before the same fact that destroys the previous one. If the women went to the wrong tomb, why did the high priests and other enemies of the faith not go to the right tomb and produce the body? Further, it is inconceivable that Peter and John would succumb to the same mistake, and certainly Joseph of Arimathea, owner of the tomb, would have solved the problem. In addition, it must be remembered that this was a private burial ground, not a public cemetery. There was no other tomb nearby that would have allowed them to make this mistake.
The swoon theory has also been advanced to explain the empty tomb. In this view, Christ did not actually die. He was mistakenly reported to be dead, but had swooned from exhaustion, pain, and loss of blood. When He was laid in the coolness of the tomb, He revived. He came out of the tomb and appeared to His disciples, who mistakenly thought He had risen from the dead.

This is a theory of modern construction. It first appeared at the end of the eighteenth century. It is significant that not a suggestion of this kind has come down from antiquity among all the violent attacks which have been made on Christianity. All of the earliest records are emphatic about Jesus' death.
But let us assume for a moment that Christ was buried alive and swooned. Is it possible to believe that He would have survived three days in a damp tomb without food or water or attention of any kind? Would He have had the strength to extricate Himself from the graveclothes, push the heavy stone away from the mouth of the grave, overcome the Roman guards, and walk miles on feet that had been pierced with spikes? Such a belief is more fantastic than the simple fact of the Resurrection itself.
Even the German critic David Strauss, who by no means believes in the Resurrection, rejected this idea as incredible. He said:
It is impossible that One who had just come forth from the grave half dead, who crept about weak and ill, who stood in the need of medical treatment, of bandaging, strengthening, and tender care, and who at last succumbed to suffering, could ever have given the disciples the impression that He was a conqueror over death and the grave; that He was the Prince of Life.
Finally, if this theory is correct, Christ Himself was involved in flagrant lies. His disciples believed and preached that He was dead but came alive again. Jesus did nothing to dispel this belief, but rather encouraged it.
The only theory that adequately explains the empty tomb is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
Instead of Blind Faith, the Ability to Know God
If Jesus Christ rose from the dead, proving He is God, He is alive today. He is willing to be more than worshiped. He is willing to be known and to come into our lives. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him" (Revelation 3:20).
The late Carl Gustav Jung said, "The central neurosis of our time is emptiness." All of us have a deep longing for our life to have meaning and depth. Jesus offers us a more meaningful, abundant life, which comes through a relationship with Him. Jesus said, "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10).
Because Jesus died on the cross, taking with Him all of humankind's sin, He now offers us forgiveness, acceptance and a genuine relationship with Him.
Proving God exists is shown by the following article:Marilyn Adamson
Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.
But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.
When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...
1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4
Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5
Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6
The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.
The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?
Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10
The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.
How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."12
Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."13
4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billions of these letters in every human cell!!
Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.14
Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.
Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.
5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.
I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."
Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.
6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.
He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."15 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."16
What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.17
Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.
Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."18 This is God, in action.
Of course, if you really & truly want to know whether or not Jesus is the God who exists, all you have to do is to sincerely ask Jesus to come into your life & make it better (abundant life)!

[pladecalvo]

Dear oh dear!!