My annual Memorial Day thread (1 Viewer)

[MTDB1983]

Where did you get the idea I'm not reading and learning more about faith? But I'm not reading to GET faith. Again, you can't study your way into faith.

I didn’t think that at all. I was speaking in generalities. Faith isn’t the subject I was referring to anyway. Faith is simply the byproduct of a deeper knowledge of a subject.

The more you learn about the facts of Christianity, the stronger your faith becomes because many of the doubts we all have are gone; many of the questions we’ve all asked which lead to doubt are answered.

 

[Cajun Mike]

Everynight I try to always make a mental prayer to those in need for comfort or mercy

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Learning more about any subject increases your faith in that subject. Example: Let’s say your overweight and you’ve “tried dieting” your entire life with no changes to your body. You give up and feel like dieting is BS and it doesn’t work. You have zero faith in its effectiveness. Then one day a Personal Trainer comes to you and helps you learn, truly learn, about dieting and its effectiveness. You start to diet in the way that truly helps. You start to shed weight because now, your actually doing the right thing. Your knowledge in the subject increased because you finally learned the proper way, and your belief in the effectiveness of dieting increases.

This is true for anything. Until we fully understand (I use fully loosely here) something, it’s easy to doubt it.

Learning more about Santa Claus increases your faith in Santa Claus?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I didn’t think that at all. I was speaking in generalities. Faith isn’t the subject I was referring to anyway. Faith is simply the byproduct of a deeper knowledge of a subject.

The more you learn about the facts of Christianity, the stronger your faith becomes because many of the doubts we all have are gone; many of the questions we’ve all asked which lead to doubt are answered.

Without context, I don’t think this is true at all- it’s not taking confirmation bias into account
If one tries to
Learn about Trump but only reads infowars, one might have more faith, but that faith is certainly not a byproduct of knowledge - it’s a byproduct of propaganda— kinda the opposite of knowledge

 

[SystemShock]

Whew. Boy. I don’t know what else to tell you. If sources are archaeological then they must be apologizing for the Bible. But your sources are valid?

It is that the sources you provide, not only have a vested interest in the story being true, they even tell you, their ultimate goal is to prove the story right. Do you honestly think that a biblical archaeologist would present evidence against the existence of Jesus, should they find it?

And yes, my sources are valid.

Jesus’s life wasn’t chronicled during the time of His life because doing so would have made you a target for legitimizing him. It was punishable by death to even follow him at points throughout his life, and many Christians after that were violently murdered and tortured for being Christians. It wasn’t as simple as writing about Him in the modern sense. One has to wrap one’s head around the context of the time.

Even if I were to accept the possibility that Christians didn't write anything about Jesus because they were afraid for their lives, what about the detractors? What about the authorities that decreed following Jesus was punishable by death? Or just chroniclers? Here is this man, Jesus, going around performing miracles left and right, gaining followers left and right, but somehow, absolutely no one wrote anything about him when he was alive.

Secondly, Josephus wasn’t the only Historian. There were 3 more. Look them up.

I know. I said most Christians point to Josephus, not that he was the only one. Still, they all wrote about Christians decades after the fact. Not only that, it is believed now that the passage about Jesus was added by someone years after Josephus died.

Thirdly, you made a comment about 30 years being too long to biograph someone based on word of mouth. Sure, in the modern time we live,

In any age, really.

...but in a culture where oral tradition was so deeply ingrained in the fabric of people, 30 years wasn’t long at all. When children were growing up during this time, it was a widely practiced act to rehearse stories that were told to them thousands of time so that when they recommunicated them, they were meticulously accurate

Thousands of times? Without a script? And they never got one single thing wrong? Or embellished the story in any way? 100% right all the time? Come on. Let's be real here. I don't think playing telephone for 30 years would be accurate, whether today or 2000 years ago.

Besides, and this is the more important point, how can you even know the story is true to begin with?

In addition, James and John were both in Jesus’ inner circle. Their words weren’t taken from word of mouth. Matthew was an apostle of Jesus. Mark was a companion of St. Peter. Every single author in the New Testament outside of Paul was alive during Jesus’s life.

And they all had a vested interest in either continuing the story, or even creating one.

Lastly, as I alluded to before, when the Gospels were written, many thousands of people that lived and saw the events that took place were still alive.

So, many thousands of people saw the events, but absolutely no one wrote about them while there were happening. Not one single person. Not the believers, not the non-believers, not the authorities who decreed punishment by death, not chroniclers, not one single person.

And yet there weren’t troves of people coming forward to disprove what had been written.

One thing we know, is that Christianity simply became a minor religion within the pantheon of Roman religions, i.e., not that important to persecute.

If his biographer had penned falsehoods, there would have been major pushback, just as their would be today. Back then there weren’t millions of books about millions of people.

What? No context of the time here? The biographer could've penned anything he wanted, but since nothing was written by anyone at the time the events took place, how would anyone know whatever the biographer wrote was true or false? Context of the time, this was the time when people thought a god was throwing lightning bolts at Earth with his hand when it rained, that there were half horse half men creatures roaming the Earth, etc. Turning water into wine, meh.

There are literally thousands of historians that don’t dispute whether Jesus was real,

But they don't assert it either. Unless they are theologians, or have a vested interest in Jesus being real.

Who burned Rome and why? How did Josephus escape and what did he escape from? There are thousands of historical pieces of evidence mocking Jesus and his followers. Hundreds of Christians were slain for being Christians. Google it and a quick search will show you.

Side note, you keep on asking me to do internet searches. I don't have to. I've heard these arguments many times over. Anyway, I don't know about the thousands part, but yet again, all decades, even centuries after the fact, absolutely none during the time Jesus was allegedly alive.

But at the end of the day, this is why Faith is a requirement.

Of course the belief on something without logic or proof is a requirement.

Because no amount of proof I could give you would be sufficient. None at all. So really I just respond because I enjoy the subject. But in my heart of hearts I know that not a single solitary thing I could say or piece of evidence I could give you would change your mind. And that’s ok.

You haven't given me any actual proof, but if you were to give me actual evidence I don't have to accept without logic, I'll believe you.


.

 

[SystemShock]

I wish I had faith but I don't. I've felt guilty about that most of my adult life. I just don't see the Bible as anything more than a book of stories. I live my life trying to be a good person and that's about all I have. I don't believe there's a creator, heaven, or hell. I view churches as a tool govts used to control their citizens. It's something I never talk about to anyone. Most people that know me probably think I am a believer but I'm not.

It would be very comforting to know someone that powerful is truly looking after you, that when you die you go to this place of eternal bliss. But then you (the generic you) read religious books, look at the world around you... not only the catastrophes, but science, societal/behavioral changes...

It seems since the beginning of time, humans have looked to some sort of religion to guide them, being through witches, shamans, priests, oracles... and these middlemen between the people and the gods have had - and still have - great influence on the masses.

 

[0rion]

Let me answer by asking you a question. If these two stories are allegory and not meant to be taken literally, does it further help or hurt my walk with God? In the end does it matter? Do those two stories teach me how to have faith in Jesus Christ?

Just so it's on record....I'm not against someone having faith and would never someone's faith. That's what you believe and I support that. Like I said before...I never talk about this stuff usually because of how easy it is to be taken the wrong way or that I'm in some way down talking someone's belief. That's not the case at all.....if anything what I believe is out of the norm and the one that needs explaining.
That being said if the Bible was meant as a guide to how to live your life in accordance with God then why would it be so cryptic and so open to interpretation? Not a knock on the Bible.....an honest question. I really need to go spend some time talking to a priest and asking questions haha

 

[MTDB1983]

Learning more about Santa Claus increases your faith in Santa Claus?

I don’t see the connection. As I’ve stated many times, there is verifiable proof that the New Testament was accurately depicting events that took place during the time it was chronicling. I see the Bible- namely the NT as largely fact-based, and I’ve read hundreds of items that lend credence to its factuality.

 

[MTDB1983]

Without context, I don’t think this is true at all- it’s not taking confirmation bias into account
If one tries to
Learn about Trump but only reads infowars, one might have more faith, but that faith is certainly not a byproduct of knowledge - it’s a byproduct of propaganda— kinda the opposite of knowledge

This is very true.

 

[MTDB1983]

It is that the sources you provide, not only have a vested interest in the story being true, they even tell you, their ultimate goal is to prove the story right. Do you honestly think that a biblical archaeologist would present evidence against the existence of Jesus, should they find it?

And yes, my sources are valid.


Even if I were to accept the possibility that Christians didn't write anything about Jesus because they were afraid for their lives, what about the detractors? What about the authorities that decreed following Jesus was punishable by death? Or just chroniclers? Here is this man, Jesus, going around performing miracles left and right, gaining followers left and right, but somehow, absolutely no one wrote anything about him when he was alive.


I know. I said most Christians point to Josephus, not that he was the only one. Still, they all wrote about Christians decades after the fact. Not only that, it is believed now that the passage about Jesus was added by someone years after Josephus died.


In any age, really.

Thousands of times? Without a script? And they never got one single thing wrong? Or embellished the story in any way? 100% right all the time? Come on. Let's be real here. I don't think playing telephone for 30 years would be accurate, whether today or 2000 years ago.

Besides, and this is the more important point, how can you even know the story is true to begin with?


And they all had a vested interest in either continuing the story, or even creating one.


So, many thousands of people saw the events, but absolutely no one wrote about them while there were happening. Not one single person. Not the believers, not the non-believers, not the authorities who decreed punishment by death, not chroniclers, not one single person.


One thing we know, is that Christianity simply became a minor religion within the pantheon of Roman religions, i.e., not that important to persecute.


What? No context of the time here? The biographer could've penned anything he wanted, but since nothing was written by anyone at the time the events took place, how would anyone know whatever the biographer wrote was true or false? Context of the time, this was the time when people thought a god was throwing lightning bolts at Earth with his hand when it rained, that there were half horse half men creatures roaming the Earth, etc. Turning water into wine, meh.


But they don't assert it either. Unless they are theologians, or have a vested interest in Jesus being real.


Side note, you keep on asking me to do internet searches. I don't have to. I've heard these arguments many times over. Anyway, I don't know about the thousands part, but yet again, all decades, even centuries after the fact, absolutely none during the time Jesus was allegedly alive.


Of course the belief on something without logic or proof is a requirement.


You haven't given me any actual proof, but if you were to give me actual evidence I don't have to accept without logic, I'll believe you.


.

What are we doing here System? Can anything I say change your mind? You have a thought process that is your belief is based largely on eye-proof. You must see it to believe it, or else any source that tells you otherwise could be biased in some way. I can’t live my life like that.

There are thousands of things you believe without verifiable proof. The oral tradition that I gave you is 100% factual. But you can’t make sense of it so you don’t believe it. I’ve lended some of that proof for what I believe, but it isn’t good enough for you. And there isn’t evidence I could provide that would do that for you. You are simply unwilling, and that is perfectly alright. It’s not my place to judge you or anyone else for it. You’ll work it out in the way you see fit- and that’s ok.

At the end of the day, a God that judges you for your actions when no one is looking isn’t a God you’re willing to believe in- and that’s most people. There is simply too much to lose.

 

[MTDB1983]

Just so it's on record....I'm not against someone having faith and would never someone's faith. That's what you believe and I support that. Like I said before...I never talk about this stuff usually because of how easy it is to be taken the wrong way or that I'm in some way down talking someone's belief. That's not the case at all.....if anything what I believe is out of the norm and the one that needs explaining.
That being said if the Bible was meant as a guide to how to live your life in accordance with God then why would it be so cryptic and so open to interpretation? Not a knock on the Bible.....an honest question. I really need to go spend some time talking to a priest and asking questions haha

No, you simply need to have an open mind to the possibility of both sides. And do intense study to prove one way or the other. There is plenty of archaeological evidence to support the claims that the NT was factual. Plenty. Systemshock feels that unless I show him the pottery shards that any info I bring will be biased in some way. That, of course, is hyperbole. But the point remains.

You ask why the Bible is so cryptic? Have you read anything written thousands of years ago? It all seems cryptic because the norms and common practices of the time combined with the language is different from ours.

It boils down to this, and this is the last I’ll say on the subject of whether or not God is real. It’s too debilitating to go back and forth, back and forth.

If God is what He says He is, then he predates time, space, logic, etc. To think that He needs to fit within the logic of a human being- quite literally the youngest organism on the planet- is a bit arrogant. And that sounds mean, but it’s true.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I don’t see the connection. As I’ve stated many times, there is verifiable proof that the New Testament was accurately depicting events that took place during the time it was chronicling. I see the Bible- namely the NT as largely fact-based, and I’ve read hundreds of items that lend credence to its factuality.

Have you also read the equal number of items that legitimately cast doubt on the factuality?
I’m not saying you don’t have some data to support your claim, but it’s no where close to the slam dunk you imply

 

[MTDB1983]

Have you also read the equal number of items that legitimately cast doubt on the factuality?
I’m not saying you don’t have some data to support your claim, but it’s no where close to the slam dunk you imply

I used to not believe. I set out to find out, and did. I don’t try to push anyone at all. There is only so much an internet discussion on a sports forum can do for an argument. It’s an argument that doesn’t even need to be had anyway. If people wanna believe, let them. Where’s the harm?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I used to not believe. I set out to find out, and did. I don’t try to push anyone at all. There is only so much an internet discussion on a sports forum can do for an argument. It’s an argument that doesn’t even need to be had anyway. If people wanna believe, let them. Where’s the harm?

And I said as much to tomwaits
I don’t consider what you and I are having as a spiritual debate but a political/scholarly one-
might as well be discussing if Shakespeare authored ‘his’ plays or what the founding fathers meant in the 2nd amendment

 

[MTDB1983]

And I said as much to tomwaits
I don’t consider what you and I are having as a spiritual debate but a political/scholarly one-
might as well be discussing if Shakespeare authored ‘his’ plays or what the founding fathers meant in the 2nd amendment

I can agree with and appreciate that.

I was more or less talking to System.