Why would the apostiles have lied?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
Oh, by the way, why would God go to all the effort to create this universe, which, after 500 years of scientific research you could still not have discovered everything, and not care about it? There are people that see no problem with this view. I'm not one of them.

---

I can think of several options:
1) This is an experiment and he/she/it wants to see how we get along without meddling.
2) This universe is the by-product of something larger and he/she/it is to busy with that larger something to worry about us.
3) This universe came about accidentally and he/she/it hasn't become aware of us yet.
4) This universe is so insignificant that he/she/it doesn't bother with us.
5) God was lonely but had to die or become impotent in order to create this universe, as a result, once the universe came into existance he/she/it lost to ability to affect it in anyway.I'm sure I can think of many more if you want. I don't belief any of these, but I think them more likely than the christian God. At least with these you don't have to make up reasons why a perfectly loving God isn't doing anything about all the suffering in the world.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

Are you are deist?

---

No, an atheist. I was just pointing out that there are possible Gods that would not care about or meddle in the universe once it was created. These would also not fall prey to the PoE (Problem of Evil) as the Christian God does.------------------
compmage

I'm not participating in this dabate anymore, but I need to set something strait. I do not worship the bible. I regard the Bible as Gods word to us. How can you worship God, while rejecting his Word? If you tell your wive you love her, but never listen to a word she says, you'll end up with a divorce."3rd, whether the apostles and Jesus were real or not is really insignifacant. The real purpose of the Bible is to give you the guides to live by. "You really have absolutly no idea what Christianity is about. If the bible isn't real, why would anyone follow its guidelines? If you don't believe in the bible, you might as well throw it away. We follow the guidelines in the Bible, because we believe it's Gods Guidelines, and that God knows what is best for us. If it isn't, then it is just the idea of some man, and you might as well throw it away and buy a book on phycology. Further more, God gave us these guidelines to live by as a way of thanking Him for our salvation. If you do not believe that He paid for our sins, why exactly would you follow these guidelines??? Your arguements is exactly that of the Inter faith movements: You rip out the hart of the Christian faith, then reduce it to a set of moral rules and then you want all religions to come together "because they all believe the same thing"."2nd, suppose he "proved" he was God. Would that suffice? "
I don't know myself. But a truely alpowerful, alknowing God would. Hence the "all" before "powerful" and "knowing""1st who says God went through ANY effort to create the universe.. That is VERY presumptious, and imposes SIGNIFICANT limits on God... "Granted. My mistake.I left this debate in a dignified and honorable manner, leaving it as a stale mate. Now you lot start using the tactics of a religious person that feel cornered: you stray from the point, and throws personal insults. (I concider your statement that I am worshipping a book instead of God very insulting). You had lots of time to prove me wrong on the toppic I've posted, and non of you could give any concrete evidence. All of it was speculation. Now that I wish to leave, you force me to come back to reply to this so called "arguements"!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
I'm not participating in this dabate anymore, but I need to set something strait. I do not worship the bible. I regard the Bible as Gods word to us. How can you worship God, while rejecting his Word? If you tell your wive you love her, but never listen to a word she says, you'll end up with a divorce.

---

False analogy. Something like this would be more accurate. Your parents and friends tell you that you are married to this girl (though you have never actually seen her). Your parents also give you a box of letters that they claim are from her, saying that if you don't read them and do what they say, she will have you tortured. The letters look like they were written by many different people and some of them contradict each other. Personally, I would think there was something fishy going on. How about you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:

You really have absolutly no idea what Christianity is about. If the bible isn't real, why would anyone follow its guidelines? If you don't believe in the bible, you might as well throw it away.

---

Is that why you aren't willing to accept the possibility that you might be wrong? That the story in the Bible isn't actually true?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:

We follow the guidelines in the Bible, because we believe it's Gods Guidelines, and that God knows what is best for us. If it isn't, then it is just the idea of some man, and you might as well throw it away and buy a book on phycology. Further more, God gave us these guidelines to live by as a way of thanking Him for our salvation.

---

Says who? The Bible? So the Bible says that the Bible is the 'Word of God' and because it is the 'Word of God' it is 100% accurate, therefore it must be the 'Word of God'. I suppose everyone can belief anything they want.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:

If you do not believe that He paid for our sins, why exactly would you follow these guidelines??? Your arguements is exactly that of the Inter faith movements: You rip out the hart of the Christian faith, then reduce it to a set of moral rules and then you want all religions to come together "because they all believe the same thing".

---

What could be wrong with ignoring morally bankrupt parts of the Bible in favour of parts that are acceptable to all?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:

I left this debate in a dignified and honorable manner, leaving it as a stale mate.

---

Except that it wasn't a stalemate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:

You had lots of time to prove me wrong on the toppic I've posted, and non of you could give any concrete evidence. All of it was speculation. Now that I wish to leave, you force me to come back to reply to this so called "arguements"!

---

We didn't have to prove you wrong. The burden of proof lay on you, since you made the claim.------------------
compmage

I am sorry if you feel I am attacking you, but I am not. I am mearly posing theological questions about your religious beliefs. You seem very vigourous in your beliefs and I was just wondering what they are based on. I have been exposed to MANY religions(Mother Jewish, Father Roman Catholic, gone to Hebrew school, Protastant High School where I was forced to attend chapel 3 times a week and take two years of theology) and I am fascinated by this kind of thing. Actually my questions don't need any responses, but are hopefully making you really ponder your own beliefs and where they are based.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad to hear this is your real motive. I felt VERY insulted. I have thought of this matter several times. (There is no religious person that does not sometimes experience doubt.) However, thinking of what I said in the debate above, I feel assured that the apostles DID exist, and they DID tell the truth. Christianity is about God reaching out to us, Jesus Christ paying for our sins, so we can find forgiveness. If you do not believe in this, you're missing the most precious message of Christianity. This IS christianity, and if you take away the LITTERAL understanding of the gosples, you're missing the point, and you're not dealing with christianity anymore. To take out this part of christianity, is like taking out the part of not eating meat in being vegitarian. Following the bible litterally, is to truely believe in God. If I worshipped the bible, I would've placed in a shrine and prayed prairs like "Oh Almighty Alknowing Book of Wisdom, look after us today." The bible is not the end,(the worshipped) but the means the the end (learning the correct way to worship God). In fact. we have a bible in our home falling appart. This is not a problem to me, sieeng that the book itself is worthless. It is the message countaint IN the book that is important. I don't mind damage to the bible, but i do mind damage to its message. And that is not idol worship, because that message comes from God.I will not respond to any more critisisms and sarcastic remarks, however, I'll be happy to explain my believes to those who want to know. (nos482, I do not know what your intentions are when calling me a "TRUE believer". You can make fun of it as much as you like, I will still concider it a great compliment.)

even to the point of absolute proof that they are completely wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
and, when it comes to disproving the existance or words of the apostles, it is clear in this debate that there is no "absolute proof" to proof they did not exist. You say the onus is on me to proof you wrong. I disaggree. The onus is on the person that wishes to convince the other party. That means you too, unless you're not really here to convince me, and just make fum of my believes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are one step away from being fanatics who would do just about anything to protect these beliefs, even kill for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That step being to blindly believe what someone else says the bible say, instead of reading the bible, and judging what the person says. Thus, the person's word carrys more athority than the Bible. Thank goodness Christianity is a "Religion of the book", otherwise the church reformation would never have happend.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hanno:
and, when it comes to disproving the existance or words of the apostles, it is clear in this debate that there is no "absolute proof" to proof they did not exist. You say the onus is on me to proof you wrong. I disaggree. The onus is on the person that wishes to convince the other party. That means you too, unless you're not really here to convince me, and just make fum of my believes.

---

The burden of proof lies the the person making the existential claim. you claim that the apostles existed, therefore you have to provide the evidence.If you want to try it your way, proof to me that there is no invisible pink unicorn making everything work. If you can't then by your own logic you should belief that this unicorn does in fact exists and is making everything work.Do you understand the problem?------------------
compmage

"You're the one who is making extraordinary claims so the burden of proof is yours. I'm an agnostic. I believe that there is no way to prove it either way."What I believe is based on ancient text which claim to be witness accounts, I did not dream it up myself. I am not going to repeat why I believe these texts to be credable. You claim these texts are false. Let's take Piltdown man. Was it not up to the other scientists to proof reasonable doubt about it's true origins, before it was removed as one on our ancestors? You've all expressed doubts, but non of it I concider reasonable, as none of them were well thought through: they all addressed just one part on my arguements, in stead of awnsering them holisticly. You say there are not enough texts available. Well, just suppose Jesus came during the time of the Nazi's. Exactly how many scripts would you expect to find? Remember, the Romans thought Christianity is a threat to the Pax Romana for 300 years. Would they have hesitated to destroy any Christian documentation that they could lay their hands on?I'm glad you said "I believe that there is no way to prove it either way." We have documentation in the Bible which describes the beginning of Christianity. For me, it's a glass that's half full, to you, it is a glass that is half empty. I say in the beginning, the glass was full, you say it was filled afterwards. (After what, I wonder?)Therefore, the objective conclusion of this debate is, the bible could be true, or it could be a falsification. Subjectively, I will say it is definitly true, and you will say it's definitly false, and we both will believe that our point of view is objective. You will say I believe without proof, and I will say you won't accept proof. Then we will argue on what exactly qualifies as "proof". And neither will accept the others point of view. So to continue the debate is pointless. I would have stopped long ago if I weren't so darn curious how you'll reply everytime (I admit, this seem to be my weakness.)Somehow, I didn't really believe I can any convince you. As Paul has said: I plant the seads and Apollos wet them, but it is God that makes them grow. So, if someone else reads my arguements, and this leads him to believe in God, or strenghten his faith, then this debate was not in vain.cheers, and hopefully, if I can controll myself, this would be my last post. LOL