Choosing a faith

Rabbit Holes (to me) implies finding holes in an argument.Rabbit Trails tend to drag posts off-topic.We are discussing choosing a faith.If you go down a hole, you may find yourself staring at General Woundwort.
Do you believe in the Hare Apparent?

Rabbit trails usually lead to rabbit holes. You need to follow both if you're going to catch a rabbit. That's what i was trying to tell GDR but he's reluctant to allow any new points. Some discussion. Then General Woundwart will be supper.

You and I were discussing evidence for the existence of Jesus, and if you're again stating your original claim that the gospel stories are evidence then you're ignoring the subsequent discussion illustrating how flimsy a claim this is. It seems that you don't really want to discuss your position. You just want to state your position as often as you can.
​ You're ignoring Ringo's point. You claimed that many people dying for the gospel stories lent them credibility, so Ringo rhetorically asked (the question was rhetorical because the answer is self-evident) whether Mormon persecution lent credibility to their books. You're trying to avoid the fact that if persecution of Christians lends credibility to their books, then the credibility of any religion's books is enhanced should they become persecuted.The extremely obvious conclusion that you're avoiding like the plague is that all the world's persecuted religions (and they're all persecuted somewhere and/or sometime) cannot all have credible religious stories since they're all internally inconsistent and contradictory, and they are all inconsistent and contradictory with each other.
​ That's not true. It's actually an unavoidable consequence of your argument.This post and the several before seem to be working hard at limiting the discussion to just the conclusions you'd like to draw and just forgetting the rest as beside the point. You're only fooling yourself - what you're doing is obvious to everyone else. Why not dedicate yourself to answering every question and then sticking with each position you adopt for the rest of the thread?--Percy

It's not true that this was already covered. Without reviewing that part of the thread, my recollection is that you just left things hanging by declaring that we each come to different conclusions. Appeals to address the evidence and the lack thereof were ignored in the end.--Percy

Well then, go ahead and use hate and rage and greed and vengefulness as evidence of God. I'd really like to see that.--Percy

You again inexplicably make a statement with obvious conclusions counter to your argument. Science can't explain everything, but what we can explain keeps growing.But what religion explains keeps shrinking as it is forced to give up more and more ground to science.--Percy

And the point *we* were discussing was whether the Bible is evidence that Jesus was real.The person who actually lived contemporaneously with Jesus and founded church's in his name never even met him. His sole experience of Jesus was in a vision. Paul's letter's are surprisingly devoid of details about Jesus's life, something you wouldn't expect were Jesus real, but years later when the gospels were composed many details have emerged, consistent with how myths arise.--Percy

But I keep getting asked the same thing, and much of the time the questions aren't the point of the thread.Yes, I keep giving the same answer and simply trying to express it differently.

IMHO, we have a deity that gifted us with a consciousness that perceives its existence in a world with an open future and with free will. We can choose the good as in love and we can choose the evil as in hate, selfishness, cruelty etc.Yes, we have free will and we can choose the dark side, that is evident in the war in Ukraine.

Edited by GDR, .

Though there is no evidence for the Holy Spirit, that described the relationship. Of course, such an assertion depends on whether Jesus Himself actually existed at all. All that we Christians have is belief, experience, and observation. Paul never even met Jesus. We believe that Paul *did* meet the Holy Spirit and his head and heart were never the same since.(not to mention the beatings)

I agree, and its a big part of the point I was trying to make, but I keep getting asked for that kind of evidence. OK. I admit that I was trying to get away with something as it is very difficult to try and concisely answer the question.Hopefully we don't get bogged down on this. I don't have the knowledge to argue it to any depth at all.She argues that if we are just our brains then free will is an illusion. Here is a quote.

quote:

---

There are implications for free will. If we are driven by our brains, then are we really free to make decisions or are we simply driven by the chemical reactions within? On these grounds, how can anyone be held responsible for their actions, good or bad?

---

She also talks about how in her experience how people in a totally vegetative state, (I don't like that term either), or essentially brain dead. still can be aware of everything going on around them.She talks about the placebo effect. We know that placebos can have a healing effect of physical ailments. If we are nothing but the brain, then why would someone's condition improve? The placebo isn't actually changing anything material.That is not a summary but 3 of the points that she makes.And again, just to establish her credentials she has a PHD in Brain Imaging.

I was not using that argument to lend credence to its accuracy but simply to say that it was evidence.I have no problem with counterarguments. It is the language that gets used. Twice in this thread I've been called a liar. You keep repeating this. Once again I was simply making the point that the Bible is evidence to be considered. It was not about whether it is good, weak or poor evidence. That is a different discussion.When this thread ends, then maybe it can be discussed in a new thread, but we have been down that road before.

Good grief, I really thought that would be assumed. Yes, that is your belief. I gotta admit, I was pretty happy to see the Blue Jays hammer the Red Sox last night. I assume that what you describe would be what you would see via a brain scan, but it is the thought of the vacation that spurred that action in the brain. Where did the thought come from?

It is just that I've been down that road before and and I'm not anxious to do it again. I primarily started this thread to try and convince some of the more fundamentalist Christians that God doesn't only care about Christians, and that Christianity isn't the only path to serving God.As I said earlier, if this thread comes to a conclusion we can try discussing the quality of the evidence in the Bible. My only point here is that it is evidence. You used to work hard at keeping people on the topic that was made at the beginning and then limit it to 300 posts or so. Yes, claiming that the Bible is evidence can lead to the question of the accuracy of the evidence but that wasn't the point of the thread.The point of the thread is that the doctrine that people choose to believe or reject isn't as important as the nature of the god they choose to worship. If a person be they Christian, atheist, Mormon, Muslim or anything has a heart that causes them to be willing to sacrifice for others then they are serving the God we see incarnate in Jesus of the Gospels.That is consistent with the Gospels and for what it is worth, CS Lewis.

​
See my reply to Tangle. post 789