Choosing a faith

I have all the answers now. --Percy

I would be threatened and probably assaulted if I set that up around here.

Yes, it seems that way to me, too, except that if you challenge his belief in Jesus, whose existence is superfluous to all the nice stuff like the Golden Rule and so forth, he digs in.--Percy

No, no, no, that's not so. Christians are all about peace and love. I know, because they had booths, too, and they told me. By the way, the atheists group told me the only reason they set up a booth was because of all the religious booths set up along the mall.Many homeless eek out an existence a very short walk away near the Rose Garden. There wasn't a Christian in sight.--Percy

Here's what I think you just said.There's a God, but you don't know what powers he has, and of those powers that he *does* have you don't know which ones he'll choose to use in any given situation.Those who are selfish and inhumane create an "eternal fire" (whatever that is) for themselves by descending into some other "being" (Satan?).And while you don't say, I presume that God is the judge of whether someone's selfishness and inhumanity exceeds some threshold, which would mean that God is actually responsible for anyone experiencing "eternal fire".And you don't doubt the eternal fire, you just don't think it is created by God (even though you claim you don't know what his powers are and so don't really know whether he has the power to create eternal fire) by descending into this other being that you don't name but who I'm guessing is Satan.Doesn't this all sound like gobbledygook even to you?Making up a rational and consistent religious theology's a bitch. Don't feel bad, none of the other religions have succeeded, either. Your answer to Ringo was, "I think you can probably work that out for yourself." That's not an answer. If you have an answer then let's hear it, and if you actually already gave it in a previous message then please provide a link. How the hell am I supposed to know where your answer is? Was it in a subsequent message? A prior message but you feel Ringo ignored the answer? What? We're not mind readers here. You're behaving in ways that make people suspect you're being cryptic and evasive in order to avoid addressing the issues. It's like you're trying to punish the other people in this thread by being as frustrating as possible.--Percy

Careful or he will decide you are not worth replying to also

Well you say that, but other people who share your belief say entirely the opposite and those like me who don't belief at all say that it's evidence that it's all a fiction. It's possible to say anything at all isn't it? But that's not what is taught from the Christian pulpit is it? Christian teaching is all about the afterlife and how to get to the good place and avoid the bad place. You've created your own religion picked from the dressing up box of Christian theology and apologetics to suit your personal beliefs.There's no harm in all that, at least you've picked the nice stuff from the box, but it's still a personal invention, a pleasant pastiche of the actual religion.

In my opinion, all who share the belief (in a real way) basically share the same Spirit.I totally agree with GDR's logic and do not believe that the book itself is entirely of human non-believing origin. Carrier writes (and logically "proves" that Jesus is a myth, but Carrier was never a believer. The evidence that he uncovered persuaded him. The authors of the OT and the Torah were believers but were primitive believers. They were warring people and survivalists. They would feel quite uncomfortable with turning the other cheek, selling all that they had, or giving everything necessary up to their government, even if they did have a Theocracy.I still feel that way at times. Even if the US became a Theocracy, and God was officially proclaimed head of the country, I would resist giving all that I had. I can totally relate to the depiction of God given back then, and it's not God's evolving character that is on trial..it is Mankind's descriptions of how they perceived that He spoke to them. I don't look at Christianity as a religion, nor do I equate other religions as knowing God except as they understand God. It may well be arrogant to assume that Christianity is the only way *to* God, but I do in fact assume that.Tangle will argue that I of course feel that way, having been born in the right place and time, but keep in mind that the right place was mid-eastern earth 2000 years ago and the right time was and is different for everybody. There are arguments about who among humans past and humans present knows God versus making God up. I am said to not know Jesus because I do not do what He says nor write in humble altruistic and empathetic terms about the relationship I have and perceive with other fellow humans. ringo even says that I am conservative precisely because I am mean and spiteful. I in turn say that the only hope for Liberal thought and ideology will have to come from empathetic and benevolent Christians--people who know God by knowing God's character.If the ideology is upheld by humanists who imagine a future based on atheistic consensus, they will end up following (and creating) a path for the Antichrist, if in fact, such a character exists. And scripture tells us plainly that it does. Of course, Carrier would challenge and debunk the scripture. It is his job and he does it well. Perhaps he too is part of the overall plot. The Christian pulpit (preaching largely to conservatives) is as bad or worse than atheistic imagination. Many Conservatives do in fact create their own religion.Many liberals also authoritatively create a script....though not a religion, it is a clever counterfeit to the message...chiefly because the envelope that it comes in is human.I know that many of you will argue that human origins are all that we have (and/or all that we can *prove* through evidence) but I would agree with other believers who stand on the idea that God (the Creator) stepped out of eternity into time at the place He chose and to and through the people He chose. The rest of us can accept or reject the story as we choose. The important evidence is in the human heart.

A booth like that would answer no questions for me, but it would lead to many more questions. I would grill them with questions. They would be easier than the JW's, however, because they have fewer preconceived answers backed by "scripture". They only have answers based on logic and reason. They tend to be legends in their own minds.If Tangle had a booth like that he would have a banner that says
*Ditch the bells and smells.
*Enjoy Life. Let's go fishing."xongsmith would have a sign that said "Stay away from the other booths. They are all conservatives!"He may even have a few editions of Xong to peddle.ringo would likely not sit at the atheist booth since he has never publicly declared he is an atheist. He likely would just set up a spare change booth a couple of blocks away with the poor people. His banner might read:"Conservatives welcome IF they bring more food."
"Sit awhile and eat. Enjoy the message, but don't overthink it."

No I do not.I say you are conservative because you agree with the conservatives about everything. And you quote Trump to insult Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.It may just be coincidence that you and the conservatives are both mean and spiteful.

I call myself moderate. I agree with the liberals about social security and unionism. I agree with the conservatives on private property rights and on freedom before equality. I do NOT advocate a secular "church": of a government even if the evangelicals have dropped the ball in regard to social welfare. Let God judge us rather than harpy liberals.

Equality IS freedom you muppet.

Hmmmm.I googled this. Why Freedom Implies EqualityFrom the free part which I was able to read, I saw the argument come to life. Perhaps I am selfish. I want no consensus on this one.

"I want..."You really need to have a word with GDR, he at least believes in Christ's message.

It would be accurate to say that the article you link to was written by Christian believers but appears at a secular website. It definitely is not as you describe it, a "non-Christian source" endorsing the historicity of Jesus.When you see phrases like, "Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree" that Jesus was a genuine historical figure, most such scholars are believing Christians. If someone were to express this from the opposite perspective they would write something like, "Most non-Christian religious scholars harbor serious doubts about the historical reality of Jesus."Here's a quote from Christ myth theory:

quote:

---

In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Palestine, and that he was baptized and was crucified. Beyond that, mainstream scholars have no consensus about the historicity of the other major details of the gospel stories, or on the extent to which the Pauline epistles and the gospels replaced the historical human Jesus with a religious narrative of a supernatural "Christ of faith".

---

My position pretty much echos this. It's not impossible that there was a 1st century Jewish preacher named Jesus, but if there was and if he served as the basis for the Pauline epistles and the gospels then he has been exaggerated and distorted out of all recognition.--Percy