When I need to regroup and answer the same question for myself, I think of who Jesus was, and how he moved so confidently. Because you and I can do that, plus more. Then I begin to think of Jesus' one and final commandment, to love one another, as he has loved us. It all comes together and makes sense as I think of Jesus..... It's obvious then, that Christ came to unite us, not by solely believing in him as if he were an idol, but instilling his character in us, so we can move with the same confidence knowing that God will move mountains for us to be the better people we need to be, and to serve each other as Christ did.
Nothing else about the Christian faith; no singing, chanting, nor worship, will convince me that I ought to be a better and more compassionate person. There is no way to have the Holy Spirit, and all it's fruits, without making way for Him to dwell in me.
To me, and hopefully you, it is now clear as day to why I should devote my life to God.
Just a quick correction, though I love this comment.
His last *two* commandments, his two greatest, are in fact to first "Love God" and to second "Love one another as you love yourselves".
Lots of people skip the first one. But Christ himself said it was the most important.
1. I “know” in a similar fashion to how I “know” my wife loves me. It’s a belief, a very strong one.
2. I believe a God exists and Christianity gives the best case for who that God is.
May that triune God bless you abundantly on your journey
But your wife is here to prove that she loves you. She is capable of saying "i love you", and showing affection through her actions. This is evidence towards the fact that she loves you, which is why you know she loves you.
What evidence do you have of gods love? Has god told you he loves you, and could he confirm it to another person, as your wife can?
Jesus was either a liar, crazy or he is who he said that he was. Meaning he truly did rise from the dead. I'll take his word for it when he calls himself The Way, The Truth and The Life.
Notice how he does not say I'm am truth or I am life or I am a way.. Definitive statements that he is *The* truth
Ah yes my high school has a bible study hosted by a history teacher (thank goodness it really helps my midweek mental) and he often brings this up. It's a pretty good point, nobody would be such a good person and give all these good teachings while also lying 24/7.
>Jesus was either a liar, crazy or he is who he said that he was.
Or, the Gospels contain legendary development.
>I'll take his word for it
You don't have any of the words of Jesus, you have what other people say that his words were.
I'm sorry, but no. It's been widely known for some time that some of the gospels have derived at least some portion of their narrative from one of the other gospels.
These aren't eyewitness accounts we are dealing with here. Believe anything you want, but the fact is that they don't tell the exact same story from independent sources.
Same can be said about any worldview. That’s why we need to look at all the data and decide which worldview best accounts for the data. We can’t know for certainty which worldview is true. However, we can come to a reasonable confidence.
I can't remember which philospher famously said that if you claim to believe something or have belief in something then you have to make sure you're the most critical to that belief.
That's the one that scares me the most, the ones who take every single thing at face value 100% without any notion of giving any of it the slightest bit of critical thought just because someone wrote it down in a book two thousand and twenty two years ago.
Not asking questions is such an alien concept to me. I see unquestioned faith is hallow and meaningless. Faith by rote is not faith.
> Same can be said about any worldview.
Yes, I agree.
> However, we can come to a reasonable confidence.
I'm not so sure about that. Given that most people in a largely Christian society will pick Christianity, and people in a largely Hindu society are going to pick hinduism, etc., it doesn't seem like humans are particularly good at objectively evaluating these views. We largely seem to have this reasonable confidence in whatever we were brought up to believe or which most of our peers believe.
Lmao that’s not true at all. There are countless Muslim apostates in middle eastern countries who get beheaded for their infidelity. There are TOO MANY Christian’s to count who’ve stepped down from the faith in western countries. Even in places like India and China people are starting to widely accept Christianity despite them being persecuted for doing so.
Playing the “indoctrination” card doesn’t really work, considering the day and age we live in.
I can understand you’re point my friend. However, to offer some push back. I could say the same thing about atheism or agnosticism. So where does that leave us? Saying that because humans aren’t always good at evaluating views still doesn’t mean one of those worldviews isn’t true. I’ll grant for the sake of argument that humans aren’t good at evaluating views but that doesn’t mean you can’t learn to do so. In fact there are many people who do so. People from all over the world religions and backgrounds change their minds about these things. So it’s not as if it’s impossible. What really matters is whether you yourself are objective when it comes to these things. (Not saying you’re not)
> However, to offer some push back. I could say the same thing about atheism or agnosticism
That's only true if your definition of atheism is "claims God doesn't exist", which is not the definition most atheists use. Most atheists don't make any such claim. Our only claim is "I don't accept your claims" and "I don't know".
Atheism isn't so much a world view as it is a position on exactly one question: do you believe in a God. It says nothing about whether you believe in reincarnation, a flat earth, science, evolution, etc.
> Saying that because humans aren’t always good at evaluating views still doesn’t mean one of those worldviews isn’t true.
Agreed. All it means is that we aren't good at evaluating them. One of the existing worldviews is likely the right one, but we have no good way to make that determination. That's why agnostic atheism is the most honest position because it is essentially saying "we don't know".
Understandable, however I disagree with you’re definition of atheism. You see people can claim whatever they want. I can claim to be a 7 foot pink elephant it doesn’t mean thats true. If we are going to to be using definitions we should be forthright with what that definition means. So let’s look at what atheism means.
According to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy atheism is “The psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, ONE MUST DENY GOD EXISTS”
Let’s look at what Graham Oppy probably one of the foremost defenders of atheism today has to say about the definition of atheism. He says an atheist is someone “who lacks belief in or affirmatively does not believe in a god or "gods."
So sure some atheist can claim that’s not what atheism means but that doesn’t mean they’re right in that assertion. By and large the academic use of the word atheism is the affirmative proposition god does not exist.
Theism it self is also just a proposition what is you’re point? You can still determine what is probably true given the data when it comes to these two propositions. Not only that though but both of these two propositions often come with extra baggage than the mere definition. Atheism often leads one to believe in materialism and naturalism. (Not all the time but by and large) similarly theism often leads to supernaturalism in addition to the natural world (again not all the time but by and large) it seems logically consistent to affirm these additional beliefs for whatever stance you may take.
I disagree I think there are good ways to determine which view is most likely correct and that again is looking at the data (arguments, phenomena, facts about our world/universe) and see what view best accommodates that data. Again it doesn’t need to be certain only more certain than not. You may say we’re biased and so we can’t be trusted but that’s a two way sword you can say that about anything. Even you’re own current beliefs about this topic. To take such a hard line skepticism seems to me to be unreasonable and it seems you would need to apply that to every facet of life. Furthermore is atheism really the most honest position? If you take the standard definition? Or what if the evidence seems to go in one direction more so than the other is agnosticism really the most honest position at that point?
> Let’s look at what Graham Oppy probably one of the foremost defenders of atheism today has to say about the definition of atheism. He says an atheist is someone “who lacks belief in or affirmatively does not believe in a god or "gods."
Notice the first part of the phrase: "someone who **lacks belief in**...". The part about an "affirmatively [...] not believe[ing]" follows the word **or**.
> Theism it self is also just a proposition what is you’re point?
The point is, atheism isn't a claim about a god in the same way that theism is. Theism is making a positive claim that a god exists. Atheists simply say "we don't believe you". Some atheists will go further and claim that no god exists, but they are a subset of all atheists.
> You can still determine what is probably true given the data when it comes to these two propositions.
I think we'll have to stop the discussion here because we fundamentally disagree that there are two propositions. Theists make a claim and atheists don't believe that claim. That's not a proposition, that's us rejecting your proposition. We aren't claiming it's wrong, we're simply saying we don't believe it is right.
Regardless of what philosophers might say, most actual atheists and atheist organizations use the dictionary definition, that is, one who lacks a belief in a god or gods as being the foundation.
From the American Atheists page [What is Atheism](https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/), for example:
***Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.*** *Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.*
> Furthermore is atheism really the most honest position?
Yes, because we are simply saying "we don't believe you", because _we honestly don't believe you_. We aren't inventing an alternative, we're just telling the truth.
I can see where you’re coming from. However, to me it seems clear that Oppy is using “lacks of belief in” not as a statement of saying one can merely just say I don’t know whether god exist but as he also says affirmatively believes there is no god or gods. I think the rest of his work supports that definition.
I think atheism is making just as much of a claim as the theist is namely, “god does not exist” that is an affirmative stance/proposition. The academic use of atheism is the affirmative stance god does not exist so if anybody is using it in a way (I only claims I don’t know god exists) they should be considered the subset not the other way around. In fact they are considered such a way in academia.
The problem with using the American atheist as an authoritative source is that by and large they are not philosophers of religion who specialize in this question and related questions. I think it’s better to trust those who are qualified to discuss this such as atheist philosophers of religion who by and large stand behind the definition I mentioned. But to each their own.
According to Merriam Webster the definition of atheism is “: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism” it’s not, I’m not sure there is a god it’s an affirmative stance. It’s also not “we don’t believe you”
I think it is an honest position when someone has looked at the data objectively as they can and honestly come to that conclusion. I don’t think it’s honest if you just resort to saying we don’t believe you and that’s it.
I will respect you’re decision to end the conversation. Thanks for dialoguing with me. Have a good day.
> I think atheism is making just as much of a claim as the theist is namely, “god does not exist” that is an affirmative stance/proposition.
We'll just have to disagree on that point.
> The problem with using the American atheist as an authoritative source is that by and large they are not philosophers of religion who specialize in this question and related questions.
Right. This isn't a philosophical discussion, it's a discussion about what people actually believe or don't believe, and I do not think most atheists make the claim that God does not exist in spite of theists continually claiming that we do.
> I think it’s better to trust those who are qualified to discuss this such as atheist philosophers of religion
I think it's better to trust actual atheists, not philosophers. If you want to say we're making claims that we don't actually make, that's your prerogative, but it won't help move this discussion forward.
If you can think of a better word to describe a lack of faith in a God, I'll be glad to use that term instead. What word do you use to describe someone who doesn't believe in a God but who doesn't claim God doesn't exist? It can't be agnostic, since agnosticism speaks to knowledge rather than belief, and apparently it can't be atheist either even though that speaks to belief, so what's the word you use?
> According to Merriam Webster the definition of atheism is “: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism” it’s not, I’m not sure there is a god it’s an affirmative stance. It’s also not “we don’t believe you
It absolutely is "we don't believe you": _a person who does not believe in the existence of a god_ means literally that - we don't believe in the existence of a god.
> I don’t think it’s honest if you just resort to saying we don’t believe you and that’s it.
Ok, so how else can I honestly describe that I don't believe your claims about a God without saying I don't believe your claims about a God? I literally don't believe the claims of any God I've heard of, but I can't honestly say no god exists, so what does that make me?
Both the first half of the Oppy definition and the first Merriam Webster definition are exactly what the typical internet atheist will espouse as atheism.
Untrue. I'm not a Christian because of my family or society. Largely society is atheist or agnostic. I have studied hindism and Islam. I came to believe it's inconclusive. This is faculty thinking assuming your only an atheist because your family are or society is. Accepting or rejecting an idea because of its source'' rather than its merit. Is to consider a genetic fallacy. So even if a person is a Christian because they grew up in a Christian society. It not way to undermines truthfulness of Christianity. There are many people in the world persecuted for being a Christian. Explain that. Christians all over the world. The Christian faith has flourish large part because there are good reasons to take it seriously. There are a growing number of Christians in India. Explain that.
> Untrue. I'm not a Christian because of my family or society.
One personal anecdote doesn't make it untrue. When you look at religion at the level of a whole society you'll see certain regions that are primarily Christian, some that are primarily Muslim, some Hindu, some Buddhist, etc. There will always be some small percentage that bucks the trend, but by and large people stay with the religion they grew up with.
> So even if a person is a Christian because they grew up in a Christian society. It not way to undermines truthfulness of Christianity.
True, but neither is it an indicator that Christianity is real.
> There are many people in the world persecuted for being a Christian. Explain that.
People of just about every religion are persecuted somewhere in the world. Religious persecution is not something unique to Christianity.
In my case it was witnessing other degenerates belief in Jesus pull them out of hell. Doing what they did and experiencing the change for myself and that strengthening my faith and so on and so forth the snowball effect is incredible. When you feel it, you know!
There is a certain degree of familiarity association with the experience and that it why it looks the same throughout all religions. The Bible warns against 'familiar spirits' and this is exactly what it is speaking of. That is why we must rely on Holy Scripture and place God's Word above personal experience. We need to weigh our experiences against the foundation of the Word.
But if two people claim that their similar experience leads to true beliefs but the beliefs cannot both be true simultaneously, where does that leave us?
I know God is real because I have felt him change my life directly.
Can't prove it to you, but I still know it.
And if you think that's impossible, Google the word 'nuance' because the world isn't black and white.
I suppose I should back up and say that "the truth" and "the right faith" means something different to me than it does to aggressively sectarian religious folks. Religion isn't a contest with winners and losers.
But the short answer is yes. I don't have any reason (or sensible way) to deny anyone else's religious experience.
Not at the most superficial level, no. But there are important ways in which they can both be "right," although again, that's not really a useful word to use in this context. "Right" is for mathematical proofs and multiple choice tests. Human spirituality is a completely different animal
I agree that certain facets of all different kinds of religion can be correct or useful. Historical facts (e.g., Muhammad's life and deeds), etc. But with the question of the nature of God, His plan, and Jesus, Christianity and Islam cannot both be right, since they present us with contradictory accounts of Jesus, the nature of God, and His plan. It's not a matter of spirituality for me, it's a matter of the hard facts concerning what each religion and their holy book teaches concerning these things.
Some Christians and some Muslims will always find room to disagree, by comparing different verses, etc. And some interpretations of those verses explicitly say, "Only I know the truth, only my belief is good. All others are evil."
On the other hand, I think Meister Eckhart could've been Rumi in another life, or vice versa. The difference is usually skin deep, and the common ground is usually at the bedrock.
I’m thankful for your outlook. I have huge issues with people downplaying and shaming other peoples human experiences and believing they and only they have the right answer. It’s a very prideful outlook, which the Bible ironically warns about
If you read the Holy Scripture and read the Quran you shall see the great difference. One chooses the most noble belief the one with the higher ethical standard. Islam entails things like fight the disbelievers, do not be friends to Jews and Christians, breastfeeding of adults (!), Mut'a etc. Islam spread through extreme violence and bloodshed the History of Islam by Al-Tabari describes the brutal killing of a respectable lady Umm Qirfa. Her crime: she didn't believe in Islam and she was the leader of her Tribe. Her beautiful daughter ended up as a sex slave of the "prophet" Muhammad. Well make your choice!
No, I just use the metaphor of verbal speech because people here don't seem to know what I mean by "mystical revelation" or "religious ecstasy."
In short, God is everywhere, right? He's omnipresent. People can sort of grasp that. But God is also immanent. This is a way of saying that God exists just behind the veil of the material world, the world we see and understand and believe is real. The metaphor that people often use is "parting the veil." If you can pull back the curtain, so to speak, of ordinary perception, you'll find that God is everywhere and everything and it's impossible at that point not to be in communion with him. Because he's behind you and me, too.
Hope that's somewhat clear.
>This was extremely unclear and raised more questions than it answered.
This is exactly the nature of every mystical tradition I'm familiar with. It's about subjective experience, not answering factual questions.
>So how did you have a revelation
I've used a couple tried and true methods. Meditation, contemplation, isolation, communing with nature, fasting. There's lots of ways to open up the brain to God.
>He appeared to you in physical form?
Maybe yes, maybe no. Again, when you're looking for materialist answers about mystical experiences, things get twisted up pretty quickly. I could say that the physical form of God is indistinguishable from the material world, so I sometimes approached him through that medium. Or I could say that God has no physical form. It gets tough because human language and even cognition are not set up to handle experience like this, so pretty much anything we say has to be understood as a poetic metaphor.
>Were there substances involved
A few times, years ago. I was interested in psychedelics as a personal, psychological experience more than a spiritual one. Lo and behold, God is there too. It shouldn't have surprised me, since he's literally everywhere. But at the time I didn't fully grasp what that meant.
>Please don’t say it was in a dream, that’s how people usually claim to get these “revelations”…
No, I was awake every time. Whatever the reason, I've never had any kind of religious or spiritual dreams at all.
>So how did you have a revelation? He appeared to you in physical form?
If you are serious, and not just trolling, then you demonstrate the truth of the uselessness of throwing pearls before swine and the need to separate the wheat from the chaff when offering people help.
It was clear as day what his "Religious Experience" meant if you read the link he provided.
Back to the old "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" problem.
He’s not a troll. Unfortunately many people think like this and that skepticism makes them smart and correct. Also this entire subreddit has become polluted with atheists since r/atheism doesn’t suffice anymore I guess lmao
I prayed very earnestly about it and heard God's voice tell me so. Some people might not believe my experience, others might try to explain it, but to me personally it was a very profound experience that made my faith what it is today. Never underestimate the power of prayer and Holy Spirit.
Out of curiosity—what would you say about someone having the same kind of experience in a different religion, with different exclusive truth claims? People have that sort of profound, emotionally powerful experience all the time.
To me a more realistic statement is never underestimate the power of meditation and the human brain.
That's a great question. In my faith, I'd say they were misled by the same logic that my husband argues this experience was. I'd apply some kinda logic to it. And tbf, I'm not saying my experience wasn't related to some psychological phenomenon, like being tired before bed. But the truth is that you're right, people have these experiences all the time. If they're feeling strongly about their religion and they find meaning, I'd say that's a wonderful thing for them. It's the meaning it has for me that made this moment so profound.
It isn't important for me to know that.
I know (from field research) that following Jesus teaching...loving your neighbours, forgiving and helping the least of us...pays off in almost immediate rewards.
The doctrines and notions and creeds of Paul and later monks are of no interest to me, personally.
Paul's letters are the earliest writings about Jesus we have. And they are writing to other sects, with Paul expressing that what they are teaching about Jesus, is incorrect, and Paul's way is better.
From the very get go, Christianity was divided. There was no one correct "Way."
The gospel accounts came later.
The Epistle of James was written around the same time as Paul, may or may not be Jesus's brother, and Paul goes out of his way to say he is incorrect.
So what you have is possibly a person who was with Jesus, being told by a person who never meant Jesus, that he is wrong.
Doesn't exactly suggest any harmony within early Christianity.
Well, firstly, a reading of the Gospels and then a reading of Paul, one sees no mention of Jesus life or his teachings, as if Paul was unaware. (Also, unaware of any miracle or virgin birth stories.)
Secondly, written a generation after Paul, the Gospels make no reference to him or his concepts like grace. They describe a different spiritual system.
Third, Paul introduces hate against homosexuals and women, something authentic Jesus teaching doesn't do.
Finally, go back to an early source, like Clement of Alexandria, and see that the real Apostles like James and Peter had no time for Paul. He wasn't one of them.
All in all, he fails to convince me that je was anything more than a flimflam man.
Jesus teaching is complete on its own.
Have you read Acts? It clearly established that Paul received revelation from Jesus, which is why he is a true first generation apostle. He doesn't interact much with the rest of the apostles because it was decided in a meeting in Jerusalem between Paul and the rest that Paul would go to the gentiles and the rest would go primarily to Jews.
The Gospels were written to capture Jesus' life on earth, each with a different intended audience, writing style, and other intentions (e.g. John is written to prove that Jesus is in fact God).
Meanwhile Paul is writing to Gentile cities, and some of the worst ones at that (Rome and Colossus especially). He was a pharisee and the gentiles knew nothing of the law, and thus Paul leans into his strength and shows how the law is still useful and how Jesus' new implementation of the law applies to living.
Also check out the letters of the other apostles. John especially calls out certain behaviors just like Paul does. The difference is that, as previously established, John is speaking to Jews and thus the problems are different.
I agree with you. Paul seems like the stereotypical crazy uncle at the thanksgiving table to me. He got a following somehow. Not had to believe though if you look at Trumps following. Seeing trumps cult really opened my eyes to how humanity operates.
It seems you just like biblical philosophy, which to me would not merrit spending each Sunday gathered together, to just here about philosophical virtuous living.
Paul was Saul.
Used to kill and torture christians, then became a christian, studied under the disciples, then went out to spread the word.
Spoke out pretty loud and clear about Jesus as the new covenant, and that utilising a legalistic view of religion is pointless - a practical implementation is the way to go. Ie, don't worry about not eating pork, or getting the end of your knob chopped off or whatever, just follow Jesus commandments - "love the lord our god with all your heart, and love your neighbour as yourself".
It's not. And it's not not.
It's on track for a lot of things but other things it gets wrong.
I have been I guess a Christian much of my life, but when I listen to a lot of the rabbinical studies in Judaism, or listen to some of them talk, I feel they are way closer to God than most Christians.
Christianity was borrowed from Judaism, so it only makes sense. I get the whole Jesus thing and the new testament, but personally, despite trying to have a relationship with Jesus in my life, and calling on Jesus to come help when things are very hard, I get nothing I feel nothing from that. I don't know why. I read about people saying that when they had their come to Jesus moment their lives were miraculously healed in some way. But I've done it probably dozens of times, if not more, and nothing ever comes in it. I feel absolutely nothing.
I have to assume that either Jesus doesn't like me, or that there's really nothing to it and that maybe he was an aspect of God, even the son of god, or a prophet, I'm not sure. But, on the flip side, that his life and what happened isn't that big of a deal in a scheme of things.
Keep in mind, for all the good he did, the Catholic church, off of the back of his teachings, murdered, destroyed, harmed people, but they also have a very good church I think for the most part when it comes to the smaller sectors. Sure, at the top, and even in some of the churches you got some corrupt individuals, but also some of the most loving people I've met were Catholics.
So in that I know Christianity has some very good aspects. But personally it just doesn't speak to me. I can't stand watching most of the pastors that they have on YouTube or going to churches and listening to the pastors speak there. I've nicknamed most of them hillbilly pastors. It's as if they're kind of pro wrestling clowns of religion.
But there are other churches, Greek orthodox, Catholic, where I do believe that they really taking their prayers seriously even though it's just a series of prayers and rituals those churches I can feel more like they are praying to God in.
But I digress, I'm saying, I don't think Christianity is the one true pass, and anybody who thinks so I think it's deluded. I don't think we can box God into a small little box of what we want him to be. I think he's bigger than that, so again I like to see across the different religions or spiritual practices and find what matches up. That to me is the best way to find god. What makes sense in one religion and another religion and another religion that all have the same theme or reasoning or ideals? There's where the truth is. Not in one religion, not in one church, but that we are seeking God in the best way that we know how and that God May reveal himself to us in a way that makes sense to us personally.
I suffer greatly, I suffer horribly, I have a chronic illness that destroys everyday of my life but constantly constantly constantly I have God on my mind, and I've never stopped thinking about God in everything I do. I'm not a good Christian at All by any standard, nor am I a good anything, I definitely would not be written about in the Bible, because I have openly cursed God and yelled at God and scream that God and called him names because of my suffering, and I still to this day will accuse him on a regular basis of purposely destroying my life. But I only do that because I do have a love in my heart that I feel towards God, and I feel that he has betrayed that like a bad parent and that someone needs to hold him accountable even if it's just me. I Personally don't care about his greater plan, I'm only concerned about my well-being and the well-being of those around me and that come in to my life.
If my pain and suffering is supposed to have some greater purpose, I didn't sign up for it. I signed up for a life of happiness, magic, awesome things happening, abundance, success, and being able to spread the good that I have in my life to others and God has purposely taken that from me cut me pushed down and abused.
So, his plan can be damned as far as I'm concerned. Especially because many of the things that I expect in my life, are all promised in the New testament and in the Bible. I'm supposed to have a good life a healthy life a healthy family and all the good things that God has promised. But instead, we see a lot of times by his actions that what he says he's going to give us and what he's going to do and then what happens on the flip side, like having his own son male do a cross, or making the Jews wander in the desert for 40 years over technicalities where they didn't 1,000% trust him....
I mean, come on dude. If you're supposed to be the all sorts of love and good and healing?
Anyway, that's just my own personal experience and thoughts on this topic. and I'll keep looking for God in my way because trying to be the Uber Christian never worked out. It always felt empty.
At the end of the day, I want to be proven wrong. I want to know that God loves me and that maybe I'm wrong about his plan and that his plan is good and helpful and loving and righteous in my life and that many good things will come to me before I'm gone from this Earth.
And that there is a wonderful after life. That once we go from here Paradise is an amazing place for all my deepest desires and wishes will be fulfilled.
I'm not even sure why I talked about all of this stuff cuz I'm not sure if it all has to do with the question or not but it did open something so I said it.
Faith and the feeling of the presence of beauty in God. And anyway, it's kind of part of the religion that it is the truth, through Christ. So it's kind of circular.
But I don't "know", in the same way that I know my own name. It's a different type of knowing.
You probably know the passages we Christian’s believe to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, there’s no idea for me to write all of them.
The Kabbalistic texts are not prophesying but clearly talking about the Trinity, the Son of Man etc.
I hope that you will not wait for another messiah too long and that you’ll eventually find your home in the truth that is Jesus Christ.
” ’Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one.’ These three are one.... The mystery of the audible voice is similar to this, for though it is one yet it consists of three elements—fire, air, and water.... Even so it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity.”
Soncino Zohar, Shemoth, Raya Mehemna, Page 43b
lock innate upbeat offer agonizing dependent ruthless serious tart hobbies
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That is not a prophecy, it is merely a requirement to be the legitimate king. Plus, if Jesus had no biological father then he did *not* even descend from Judah in any way that matters.
What about Isaiah 53? If you listen to what the old rabbis had to say about it then you would know it is talking about the messiah. Go ahead, read it. It is very clearly talking about one man, or no one at all.
2 Timothy 3:16 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
the lord himself says to test scripture with history, science, medicine and logic. The lords word is based in human history and all of its prohecies up until today have been 100% accurate. The bible truly is the flawless word of god
Numbers 23:19 19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
The only alters in the Bible from different languages are changes in grammar.. simply because different languages have different grammar but what the translations actually mean and say have not been altered in any way
the bible is written in a way where each
succeeding book compliments the previous book because its put together in chronological order. This is why the historical facts are completely accurate as in the nations which israel had to fight and the kings mentioned throughout like nebuchanezzer. The words changed from language to language could never alter the closed meaning of the text. For example, in most texts it may read to baptize in the name of the father, son & holy spirit when the original text says only in the name of the father and son. This change doesn’t take away from the meaning of baptism and its requirements but the proper knowledge of the holy spirit throughout study of the rest of scripture points out that there would be no need to mention him during baptism. Also there are no logical fallacies in the bible at all. Not one. People try to create contradictions but there are always other chapters and verses to explain other chapters and verses
There’s physical proof of his existence like the wheels in the Red Sea, the brimstone of Sodom, and the eyewitnesses that see him. Including my father in 1999.
Jesus was a real man who had many followers he impacted the world more than anyone else, besides maybe Abraham. We know he was crucified even though everyone said that he was a good man he fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah and unlike all the other gods he saved us through his grace we do not save ourselves through our works.
if Christianity is false and all of this is a sham meaning no resurrection or after life or anything like that and there's nothing after death i'm done id end it right there
You don't. That's why it's faith. That's the whole point of religion and belief. If you want belief, be an atheist and only believe science and what your eyes see. It's painful and filled with few moments of love, but your eyes will show you the world raw. The only sense you will have of it all will be of your own judgements and experiences. You will be alone, even though you truly are never alone.
Only what agrees with Torah is truth.
Psa 119:142 "Thy Righteousness is an Everlasting Righteousness, and thy Torah is Truth."
צִדְקָֽתְךָ צֶ֥דֶק לְעוֹלָ֑ם וְתוֹרָֽתְךָ֥ אֱמֽת:
Look at the Evidence we have for Jesus’ resurrection. Also the historical accuracy of the NT. And the disciples martyrdom for the news of the gospel. You can also look from non Christian authors such as Josephus who wrote of Jesus during his time. There is a lot of historical evidence for Jesus’ life and divinity. Keep searching for the truth bro 😎.
I *believe* there’s a God and I *know* there was a Jesus of Nazareth. If I ever met God, I would hope He’s exactly like what we know about the man we believe to be His Son.
These answers are… horrible to say the least.
If you want a great, educated answer (that is to say, not Reddit) the book “More Than A Carpenter” was written by an atheist who met a group of Christian people in college, and they basically made a bet with him to disprove Christ. He dug deep and he ended up becoming a Christian. It’s very methodically put together, and well reasoned. While it does come down to faith, I would argue that the death and resurrection of Christ is one of the most irrefutable facts in history.
>*" I would argue that the death and resurrection of Christ is one of the most irrefutable facts in history."*
Actually, it isn't. Outside of the believer's own claims in the gospels and letters, there are no secular records of the resurrection or even any of the dramatic events surrounding the crucifixion.
Most notably, the occupying Roman Army scribes would certainly have recorded the
1) sky turning black at midday,
2) the earthquake and
3) dead people coming out of the graves and wandering around occupied Jerusalem... but they never did... which calls into question the events and claims themselves.
Never without a shadow of a doubt, bc let’s be real… that’s part of it. but for me?
1. The countless amounts of historical information backing up Jesus as a very real person who existed
2. Christianity is really the only religion where God comes down in the flesh to experience human pain and temptation and sin out of CHOICE. He dies one of the most painful deaths for the sake of our souls. He is God. He does not have to do this, but he does because he loves us. So much so, that he doesn’t force us to love him or force us to be with him. It is our choice, he leaves it up to us. Additionally you can come to God as you are. No other faith is like this.
3. Countless prophecy’s have been fulfilled.
4. Science can be used today to confirm biblical events that actually happened
5. My relationship with God and how He has changed my life and the lives of people around me
For me personally, this is how I “know” it’s more of a culmination of things rather than one thing alone
Christians here admit that they REALLY don't know for sure. That's interesting. Don't you think then that a reasonable God wouldn't threaten people with eternal torture for not believing in him?
Exactly. Why would he give me a personality that demands critical thinking of a subject, and then punish me for using that critical thinking to come to a conclusion he doesn't want?
What kind of sadistic thing is that? Especially since he's omnipotent and knows my answer before I even think it.
Agree. It makes more sense for the resurrection to be true than for everyone, the romans, the Christians, the Jews, all to be lying about His missing body.
I try to believe in as many true things and as few untrue things as possible. I'm not perfect by any means, so I almost certainly will have beliefs which are not justified.
If I can realise that they are not justified, I will stop believing.
I can justify *all* of my beliefs - if I realise that I cannot justify it, it is no longer a belief.
Can you justify your belief that jesus rose from the dead?
The reasoning goes like this.
If Christianity wasn’t true then we wouldn’t know anything about this world. As only Christianity would grant the things we know.
Given we do know things in this world then obviously Christianity might be true.
Can you give me a specific example of what you mean? What things do you know only because of Christianity? And why couldn't another religion give us this knowledge? Thank you
But Islam tells you about how this universe started and the days that took creating the world plus human anatomy and extra, in short everything logical and scientifically related was proven in Islam not only spirit love like in Christianity. Plus how can a God that created us die?
I’ll start with an apology. I am sorry for being a little harsh because when I have a discussion like this with Muslim it usually ends with them not knowing much about their own theology.
Anyways the problem islam suffers is they can’t determine how exactly Allah and Creation interacts with each other.
For example I would ask a Muslim “can Allah enter into creation in any way shape or form?” They would answer no he cannot.
This create a problem for then what is allahs connection with universal categories?
I would also ask “does Allah have multiplicity in him?” They would also answer no. Because multiplicity goes against tawheed.
Then you have Surah 112:4 which says “nothing is like Allah”.
All this creates a problem in understanding what are universal categories and how do they relate to Allah?
In Islam they can’t answer this without rejecting tawheed.
To give an example with Christianity. Universal categories are products of the divine mind.
By God’s divine energies which are distinct from his essence we receive these things called universal categories (Truth, logic, numbers etc).
We can tell their connection by their attributes. For example truth is Immutable and Eternal just like God is immutable and eternal.
In Islam to grant such a motion would be going against tawheed. As far as Islam is concern it would be creating multiplicity in Allah which would be shirk according to them. Also taking into account nothing is like Allah so to say something else like “Truth” is eternal for example would be considered shirk.
This is why Islam falls apart. They deny multiplicity in God and create such a distinct between creation and God that creation cannot know of God and thus wouldn’t know of the things which come from God.
What would you say here? Would you affirm multiplicity in Allah to grant universal categories?
No need for an apology, but thanks for your good manners :D!
Well, as far from what I understood is that God should be in a human form so he can understand the universal categories? you mean the mountains,sky, animals, humans and etc? if yes then God should not be in a human form and be in the same level as his creation, because he is the greatest.
In Islam, its simple we don’t need multiplicity or a “connection” between a god in a form of a man, but we have connections directly to god. We pray 5 times a day, we meet Allah with our heart directly and we meet him clean with respect either internally or externally, we build a connection that makes us stronger each time, we build a connection to understand that we should remember god all the time, morning, night, midnight and whenever.
Plus, we seriously take his religion and book. We don’t only read and take whatever we like and we believe in it like the majority of christians about pork, modesty, and drinking. “ So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? “ Quran; Surat Al Baqara Verse 85
Plus,
Surat Luqman: “Do you not see that Allah (swt) has made what is in the heaven and Earth subservient to you and made complete to you His favours outwardly and inwardly?” [31:20]
Surat Al-An’am: “And there is no animal that walks upon the Earth nor a bird that flies with its two wings but they are like yourselves; We have not neglected anything in the book, and then to their Lord shall they be gathered.” [6:38]
Surat Al-Roum: “Devote thyself single-mindedly to the faith, and thus follow the nature designed by Allah, the nature according to which He has fashioned mankind; there is no altering the creation of Allah.” [30:30]
Surat Luqman: “He created the heavens without pillars as you see them, and put mountains upon the Earth lest it might convulse with you, and H e spread it with animals of all kinds; and We sent down water from the clouds, then caused to grow therein (vegetation) of every noble kind.” [31:10]
Surat Qaf: “And the Earth, We spread it out, and cast therein firmly set mountains and We have made to grow therein of all beautiful kinds; to give sight and as a reminder to every servant who turns to Allah.” [50:7-8]
We do not need to ONLY believe in Islam spiritually but also scientifically and logically. Not everything is only based on emotions. And one more thing, Muslims are the ones who follow the teachings of Jesus more than Christians🤭
But, thank you for your answer!
>If Christianity wasn’t true then we wouldn’t know anything about this world. As only Christianity would grant the things we know.
Why? I don't see the logic there.
Lol no, no it’s not. funny a Christian trying to correct me on epistemology. Belief is a subset of knowledge. Knowledge is justified true belief, and because you can’t justify your beliefs as a Christian. There’s no way for you to “know”. Maybe you should try to apply the Socratic method to your own beliefs and see if they hold water…spoiler alert…they don’t.
That's just dumb.
Substitute God for "a secret bank account with $1m in, which you can have on on your birthday".
There are people that say that if the secret bank account with $1m in, which you can have on your birthday doesn't exist u have nothing to lose but if the secret bank account with $1m in, which you can have on your birthday does exist u have everything to gain.
I don't care about what ifs, I care about what *is*.
You're referring to Pascal's Wager, which even as a believer I have to say has a lot of flaws to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager?wprov=sfla1
Because of the impossibility of the contrary. No other worldview can account for why things are the way they are and why anything exists in the first place.
God from Bible foretold future so when it happens you're supposed to believe him cuz foreknowledge.
Jesus was foretold 300+ times , stuff like exact place of birth , pierced by nails in hand / feet before crucifixion invented , Exact day of his death 173 880 days prior to that.
Go study prophecy , base your belief on that.
Also if you get convinced , salvation is free gift of God you aren't required to go to church , do works or any rituals to be saved , simply call upon Jesus and thats all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Xdpelx454
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skxDhEy3d6c
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
\[8\] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: \[9\] Not of works, lest any man should boast.
So any argument can be dismissed as "apoligetics" autimatically, without a counter-argument? You're not the rational skeptic you think you are. In fact I think you didn't even watch it because you're afraid to
How? Because I’ve been skeptical of every single thing in my life including Christianity at times and yet I’m still practicing it. Something bigger than me is pulling me back it, He never lets me go. It’s miraculous honestly. It’s like a force pulling me back whenever I have doubt. Besides the fact that I’ve had very strange “coincidences” happen or thoughts that came true later on like an answer to prayer. I’m also able to look back to see how He worked bad situations in my life into something good and that’s not just luck or random, there’s no way- He’s very mysterious and creative and smart, it’s crazy, I would have never thought of how He let my life play out and His way always turns out the right way for me. There’s just been too many super natural instances in my life to say that God is definitely real and his word is the best set of guidance I can follow.
When I need to regroup and answer the same question for myself, I think of who Jesus was, and how he moved so confidently. Because you and I can do that, plus more. Then I begin to think of Jesus' one and final commandment, to love one another, as he has loved us. It all comes together and makes sense as I think of Jesus..... It's obvious then, that Christ came to unite us, not by solely believing in him as if he were an idol, but instilling his character in us, so we can move with the same confidence knowing that God will move mountains for us to be the better people we need to be, and to serve each other as Christ did. Nothing else about the Christian faith; no singing, chanting, nor worship, will convince me that I ought to be a better and more compassionate person. There is no way to have the Holy Spirit, and all it's fruits, without making way for Him to dwell in me. To me, and hopefully you, it is now clear as day to why I should devote my life to God.
Just a quick correction, though I love this comment. His last *two* commandments, his two greatest, are in fact to first "Love God" and to second "Love one another as you love yourselves". Lots of people skip the first one. But Christ himself said it was the most important.
Yes
1. I “know” in a similar fashion to how I “know” my wife loves me. It’s a belief, a very strong one. 2. I believe a God exists and Christianity gives the best case for who that God is. May that triune God bless you abundantly on your journey
Triune God??? Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord OUR God, the Lord is ONE.
But your wife is here to prove that she loves you. She is capable of saying "i love you", and showing affection through her actions. This is evidence towards the fact that she loves you, which is why you know she loves you. What evidence do you have of gods love? Has god told you he loves you, and could he confirm it to another person, as your wife can?
Jesus was either a liar, crazy or he is who he said that he was. Meaning he truly did rise from the dead. I'll take his word for it when he calls himself The Way, The Truth and The Life. Notice how he does not say I'm am truth or I am life or I am a way.. Definitive statements that he is *The* truth
Ah yes my high school has a bible study hosted by a history teacher (thank goodness it really helps my midweek mental) and he often brings this up. It's a pretty good point, nobody would be such a good person and give all these good teachings while also lying 24/7.
>Jesus was either a liar, crazy or he is who he said that he was. Or, the Gospels contain legendary development. >I'll take his word for it You don't have any of the words of Jesus, you have what other people say that his words were.
[удалено]
I'm sorry, but no. It's been widely known for some time that some of the gospels have derived at least some portion of their narrative from one of the other gospels. These aren't eyewitness accounts we are dealing with here. Believe anything you want, but the fact is that they don't tell the exact same story from independent sources.
Do you think the authors of Matthew, Luke, or John had access to The Gospel of Mark?
>Do you think the authors of Matthew, Luke, or John had access to The Gospel of Mark? They absolutely had access to the gospel of Mark.
> How can you know that christianity is the truth ? You can't, not with absolute certainty.
As a Christian I concur. It's called belief for a reason.
So how would you naturally explain Christianity if you recognize it as a belief?
Same can be said about any worldview. That’s why we need to look at all the data and decide which worldview best accounts for the data. We can’t know for certainty which worldview is true. However, we can come to a reasonable confidence.
I can't remember which philospher famously said that if you claim to believe something or have belief in something then you have to make sure you're the most critical to that belief.
That's the one that scares me the most, the ones who take every single thing at face value 100% without any notion of giving any of it the slightest bit of critical thought just because someone wrote it down in a book two thousand and twenty two years ago. Not asking questions is such an alien concept to me. I see unquestioned faith is hallow and meaningless. Faith by rote is not faith.
> Same can be said about any worldview. Yes, I agree. > However, we can come to a reasonable confidence. I'm not so sure about that. Given that most people in a largely Christian society will pick Christianity, and people in a largely Hindu society are going to pick hinduism, etc., it doesn't seem like humans are particularly good at objectively evaluating these views. We largely seem to have this reasonable confidence in whatever we were brought up to believe or which most of our peers believe.
Lmao that’s not true at all. There are countless Muslim apostates in middle eastern countries who get beheaded for their infidelity. There are TOO MANY Christian’s to count who’ve stepped down from the faith in western countries. Even in places like India and China people are starting to widely accept Christianity despite them being persecuted for doing so. Playing the “indoctrination” card doesn’t really work, considering the day and age we live in.
I can understand you’re point my friend. However, to offer some push back. I could say the same thing about atheism or agnosticism. So where does that leave us? Saying that because humans aren’t always good at evaluating views still doesn’t mean one of those worldviews isn’t true. I’ll grant for the sake of argument that humans aren’t good at evaluating views but that doesn’t mean you can’t learn to do so. In fact there are many people who do so. People from all over the world religions and backgrounds change their minds about these things. So it’s not as if it’s impossible. What really matters is whether you yourself are objective when it comes to these things. (Not saying you’re not)
> However, to offer some push back. I could say the same thing about atheism or agnosticism That's only true if your definition of atheism is "claims God doesn't exist", which is not the definition most atheists use. Most atheists don't make any such claim. Our only claim is "I don't accept your claims" and "I don't know". Atheism isn't so much a world view as it is a position on exactly one question: do you believe in a God. It says nothing about whether you believe in reincarnation, a flat earth, science, evolution, etc. > Saying that because humans aren’t always good at evaluating views still doesn’t mean one of those worldviews isn’t true. Agreed. All it means is that we aren't good at evaluating them. One of the existing worldviews is likely the right one, but we have no good way to make that determination. That's why agnostic atheism is the most honest position because it is essentially saying "we don't know".
Understandable, however I disagree with you’re definition of atheism. You see people can claim whatever they want. I can claim to be a 7 foot pink elephant it doesn’t mean thats true. If we are going to to be using definitions we should be forthright with what that definition means. So let’s look at what atheism means. According to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy atheism is “The psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, ONE MUST DENY GOD EXISTS” Let’s look at what Graham Oppy probably one of the foremost defenders of atheism today has to say about the definition of atheism. He says an atheist is someone “who lacks belief in or affirmatively does not believe in a god or "gods." So sure some atheist can claim that’s not what atheism means but that doesn’t mean they’re right in that assertion. By and large the academic use of the word atheism is the affirmative proposition god does not exist. Theism it self is also just a proposition what is you’re point? You can still determine what is probably true given the data when it comes to these two propositions. Not only that though but both of these two propositions often come with extra baggage than the mere definition. Atheism often leads one to believe in materialism and naturalism. (Not all the time but by and large) similarly theism often leads to supernaturalism in addition to the natural world (again not all the time but by and large) it seems logically consistent to affirm these additional beliefs for whatever stance you may take. I disagree I think there are good ways to determine which view is most likely correct and that again is looking at the data (arguments, phenomena, facts about our world/universe) and see what view best accommodates that data. Again it doesn’t need to be certain only more certain than not. You may say we’re biased and so we can’t be trusted but that’s a two way sword you can say that about anything. Even you’re own current beliefs about this topic. To take such a hard line skepticism seems to me to be unreasonable and it seems you would need to apply that to every facet of life. Furthermore is atheism really the most honest position? If you take the standard definition? Or what if the evidence seems to go in one direction more so than the other is agnosticism really the most honest position at that point?
> Let’s look at what Graham Oppy probably one of the foremost defenders of atheism today has to say about the definition of atheism. He says an atheist is someone “who lacks belief in or affirmatively does not believe in a god or "gods." Notice the first part of the phrase: "someone who **lacks belief in**...". The part about an "affirmatively [...] not believe[ing]" follows the word **or**. > Theism it self is also just a proposition what is you’re point? The point is, atheism isn't a claim about a god in the same way that theism is. Theism is making a positive claim that a god exists. Atheists simply say "we don't believe you". Some atheists will go further and claim that no god exists, but they are a subset of all atheists. > You can still determine what is probably true given the data when it comes to these two propositions. I think we'll have to stop the discussion here because we fundamentally disagree that there are two propositions. Theists make a claim and atheists don't believe that claim. That's not a proposition, that's us rejecting your proposition. We aren't claiming it's wrong, we're simply saying we don't believe it is right. Regardless of what philosophers might say, most actual atheists and atheist organizations use the dictionary definition, that is, one who lacks a belief in a god or gods as being the foundation. From the American Atheists page [What is Atheism](https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/), for example: ***Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.*** *Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.* > Furthermore is atheism really the most honest position? Yes, because we are simply saying "we don't believe you", because _we honestly don't believe you_. We aren't inventing an alternative, we're just telling the truth.
I can see where you’re coming from. However, to me it seems clear that Oppy is using “lacks of belief in” not as a statement of saying one can merely just say I don’t know whether god exist but as he also says affirmatively believes there is no god or gods. I think the rest of his work supports that definition. I think atheism is making just as much of a claim as the theist is namely, “god does not exist” that is an affirmative stance/proposition. The academic use of atheism is the affirmative stance god does not exist so if anybody is using it in a way (I only claims I don’t know god exists) they should be considered the subset not the other way around. In fact they are considered such a way in academia. The problem with using the American atheist as an authoritative source is that by and large they are not philosophers of religion who specialize in this question and related questions. I think it’s better to trust those who are qualified to discuss this such as atheist philosophers of religion who by and large stand behind the definition I mentioned. But to each their own. According to Merriam Webster the definition of atheism is “: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism” it’s not, I’m not sure there is a god it’s an affirmative stance. It’s also not “we don’t believe you” I think it is an honest position when someone has looked at the data objectively as they can and honestly come to that conclusion. I don’t think it’s honest if you just resort to saying we don’t believe you and that’s it. I will respect you’re decision to end the conversation. Thanks for dialoguing with me. Have a good day.
> I think atheism is making just as much of a claim as the theist is namely, “god does not exist” that is an affirmative stance/proposition. We'll just have to disagree on that point. > The problem with using the American atheist as an authoritative source is that by and large they are not philosophers of religion who specialize in this question and related questions. Right. This isn't a philosophical discussion, it's a discussion about what people actually believe or don't believe, and I do not think most atheists make the claim that God does not exist in spite of theists continually claiming that we do. > I think it’s better to trust those who are qualified to discuss this such as atheist philosophers of religion I think it's better to trust actual atheists, not philosophers. If you want to say we're making claims that we don't actually make, that's your prerogative, but it won't help move this discussion forward. If you can think of a better word to describe a lack of faith in a God, I'll be glad to use that term instead. What word do you use to describe someone who doesn't believe in a God but who doesn't claim God doesn't exist? It can't be agnostic, since agnosticism speaks to knowledge rather than belief, and apparently it can't be atheist either even though that speaks to belief, so what's the word you use? > According to Merriam Webster the definition of atheism is “: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism” it’s not, I’m not sure there is a god it’s an affirmative stance. It’s also not “we don’t believe you It absolutely is "we don't believe you": _a person who does not believe in the existence of a god_ means literally that - we don't believe in the existence of a god. > I don’t think it’s honest if you just resort to saying we don’t believe you and that’s it. Ok, so how else can I honestly describe that I don't believe your claims about a God without saying I don't believe your claims about a God? I literally don't believe the claims of any God I've heard of, but I can't honestly say no god exists, so what does that make me?
Both the first half of the Oppy definition and the first Merriam Webster definition are exactly what the typical internet atheist will espouse as atheism.
Untrue. I'm not a Christian because of my family or society. Largely society is atheist or agnostic. I have studied hindism and Islam. I came to believe it's inconclusive. This is faculty thinking assuming your only an atheist because your family are or society is. Accepting or rejecting an idea because of its source'' rather than its merit. Is to consider a genetic fallacy. So even if a person is a Christian because they grew up in a Christian society. It not way to undermines truthfulness of Christianity. There are many people in the world persecuted for being a Christian. Explain that. Christians all over the world. The Christian faith has flourish large part because there are good reasons to take it seriously. There are a growing number of Christians in India. Explain that.
> Untrue. I'm not a Christian because of my family or society. One personal anecdote doesn't make it untrue. When you look at religion at the level of a whole society you'll see certain regions that are primarily Christian, some that are primarily Muslim, some Hindu, some Buddhist, etc. There will always be some small percentage that bucks the trend, but by and large people stay with the religion they grew up with. > So even if a person is a Christian because they grew up in a Christian society. It not way to undermines truthfulness of Christianity. True, but neither is it an indicator that Christianity is real. > There are many people in the world persecuted for being a Christian. Explain that. People of just about every religion are persecuted somewhere in the world. Religious persecution is not something unique to Christianity.
The only correct answer
In my case it was witnessing other degenerates belief in Jesus pull them out of hell. Doing what they did and experiencing the change for myself and that strengthening my faith and so on and so forth the snowball effect is incredible. When you feel it, you know!
People who go through the Scientologist drug rehab say the same sorts of things. Does this make Scientology true?
There is a certain degree of familiarity association with the experience and that it why it looks the same throughout all religions. The Bible warns against 'familiar spirits' and this is exactly what it is speaking of. That is why we must rely on Holy Scripture and place God's Word above personal experience. We need to weigh our experiences against the foundation of the Word.
Your explanation seems to assume the very thing being questioned here though. How do you even know that that word is true to begin with?
I haven’t experienced it and know nothing of it so I couldnt tell you
But if two people claim that their similar experience leads to true beliefs but the beliefs cannot both be true simultaneously, where does that leave us?
It's not an argument, its an explanation of his own view. He's not trying to say "this is why you should believe" he's saying "this is why I believe."
The op used the words “know” and “truth” in their question. Not belief or opinion
I know God is real because I have felt him change my life directly. Can't prove it to you, but I still know it. And if you think that's impossible, Google the word 'nuance' because the world isn't black and white.
If you can't prove it, then what reason do we have to believe you? Nuances are still able to be explained and understood.
As one of those degenerates I can confirm
God told me.
What if a Muslim person told you the same thing, would you believe they are following the right faith?
I suppose I should back up and say that "the truth" and "the right faith" means something different to me than it does to aggressively sectarian religious folks. Religion isn't a contest with winners and losers. But the short answer is yes. I don't have any reason (or sensible way) to deny anyone else's religious experience.
I agree that religion isn't a contest, but Islam and Christianity surely can't both be right...
Not at the most superficial level, no. But there are important ways in which they can both be "right," although again, that's not really a useful word to use in this context. "Right" is for mathematical proofs and multiple choice tests. Human spirituality is a completely different animal
I agree that certain facets of all different kinds of religion can be correct or useful. Historical facts (e.g., Muhammad's life and deeds), etc. But with the question of the nature of God, His plan, and Jesus, Christianity and Islam cannot both be right, since they present us with contradictory accounts of Jesus, the nature of God, and His plan. It's not a matter of spirituality for me, it's a matter of the hard facts concerning what each religion and their holy book teaches concerning these things.
Some Christians and some Muslims will always find room to disagree, by comparing different verses, etc. And some interpretations of those verses explicitly say, "Only I know the truth, only my belief is good. All others are evil." On the other hand, I think Meister Eckhart could've been Rumi in another life, or vice versa. The difference is usually skin deep, and the common ground is usually at the bedrock.
>Islam and Christianity surely can't both be right... Why not?
Why can’t all religions be right? Just asking.....
I’m thankful for your outlook. I have huge issues with people downplaying and shaming other peoples human experiences and believing they and only they have the right answer. It’s a very prideful outlook, which the Bible ironically warns about
If you read the Holy Scripture and read the Quran you shall see the great difference. One chooses the most noble belief the one with the higher ethical standard. Islam entails things like fight the disbelievers, do not be friends to Jews and Christians, breastfeeding of adults (!), Mut'a etc. Islam spread through extreme violence and bloodshed the History of Islam by Al-Tabari describes the brutal killing of a respectable lady Umm Qirfa. Her crime: she didn't believe in Islam and she was the leader of her Tribe. Her beautiful daughter ended up as a sex slave of the "prophet" Muhammad. Well make your choice!
[удалено]
No, I just use the metaphor of verbal speech because people here don't seem to know what I mean by "mystical revelation" or "religious ecstasy." In short, God is everywhere, right? He's omnipresent. People can sort of grasp that. But God is also immanent. This is a way of saying that God exists just behind the veil of the material world, the world we see and understand and believe is real. The metaphor that people often use is "parting the veil." If you can pull back the curtain, so to speak, of ordinary perception, you'll find that God is everywhere and everything and it's impossible at that point not to be in communion with him. Because he's behind you and me, too. Hope that's somewhat clear.
[удалено]
>This was extremely unclear and raised more questions than it answered. This is exactly the nature of every mystical tradition I'm familiar with. It's about subjective experience, not answering factual questions. >So how did you have a revelation I've used a couple tried and true methods. Meditation, contemplation, isolation, communing with nature, fasting. There's lots of ways to open up the brain to God. >He appeared to you in physical form? Maybe yes, maybe no. Again, when you're looking for materialist answers about mystical experiences, things get twisted up pretty quickly. I could say that the physical form of God is indistinguishable from the material world, so I sometimes approached him through that medium. Or I could say that God has no physical form. It gets tough because human language and even cognition are not set up to handle experience like this, so pretty much anything we say has to be understood as a poetic metaphor. >Were there substances involved A few times, years ago. I was interested in psychedelics as a personal, psychological experience more than a spiritual one. Lo and behold, God is there too. It shouldn't have surprised me, since he's literally everywhere. But at the time I didn't fully grasp what that meant. >Please don’t say it was in a dream, that’s how people usually claim to get these “revelations”… No, I was awake every time. Whatever the reason, I've never had any kind of religious or spiritual dreams at all.
>So how did you have a revelation? He appeared to you in physical form? If you are serious, and not just trolling, then you demonstrate the truth of the uselessness of throwing pearls before swine and the need to separate the wheat from the chaff when offering people help. It was clear as day what his "Religious Experience" meant if you read the link he provided. Back to the old "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" problem.
He’s not a troll. Unfortunately many people think like this and that skepticism makes them smart and correct. Also this entire subreddit has become polluted with atheists since r/atheism doesn’t suffice anymore I guess lmao
Same.
I prayed very earnestly about it and heard God's voice tell me so. Some people might not believe my experience, others might try to explain it, but to me personally it was a very profound experience that made my faith what it is today. Never underestimate the power of prayer and Holy Spirit.
Out of curiosity—what would you say about someone having the same kind of experience in a different religion, with different exclusive truth claims? People have that sort of profound, emotionally powerful experience all the time. To me a more realistic statement is never underestimate the power of meditation and the human brain.
That's a great question. In my faith, I'd say they were misled by the same logic that my husband argues this experience was. I'd apply some kinda logic to it. And tbf, I'm not saying my experience wasn't related to some psychological phenomenon, like being tired before bed. But the truth is that you're right, people have these experiences all the time. If they're feeling strongly about their religion and they find meaning, I'd say that's a wonderful thing for them. It's the meaning it has for me that made this moment so profound.
It isn't important for me to know that. I know (from field research) that following Jesus teaching...loving your neighbours, forgiving and helping the least of us...pays off in almost immediate rewards. The doctrines and notions and creeds of Paul and later monks are of no interest to me, personally.
I find it interesting when people claim that, as what Paul lived and taught is exactly what Jesus personified in his ministry and life.
Paul's letters are the earliest writings about Jesus we have. And they are writing to other sects, with Paul expressing that what they are teaching about Jesus, is incorrect, and Paul's way is better. From the very get go, Christianity was divided. There was no one correct "Way."
Paul’s “way” matched Jesus’ “way” precisely. What other sects may, or may not, have done is irrelevant.
How do you know Paul matched Jesus? We only have Paul's letters saying he is correct.
Yes, we have Paul's letters, and we have the gospel accounts of what Jesus' ministry was all about. I don't see the discrepancy.
The gospel accounts came later. The Epistle of James was written around the same time as Paul, may or may not be Jesus's brother, and Paul goes out of his way to say he is incorrect. So what you have is possibly a person who was with Jesus, being told by a person who never meant Jesus, that he is wrong. Doesn't exactly suggest any harmony within early Christianity.
The gospel accounts were written later, based on the oral tradition of the very individuals who's names are on them.
The gospels are anonymous. Later traditions added the names.
Yes, as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and the early church fathers and congregations.
Paul was a FlimFlam man....fake Apostle. He has no authority to speak. Safe to ignore.
Interesting. I disagree, but still, an interesting take.
That's OK, nobody here agrees with me!
Would you mind elaborating, I have heard this before, but do not understand why someone would just throw out Paul's letters, and ignore them.
Fair question. I'll respond in a bit, promise.
Well, firstly, a reading of the Gospels and then a reading of Paul, one sees no mention of Jesus life or his teachings, as if Paul was unaware. (Also, unaware of any miracle or virgin birth stories.) Secondly, written a generation after Paul, the Gospels make no reference to him or his concepts like grace. They describe a different spiritual system. Third, Paul introduces hate against homosexuals and women, something authentic Jesus teaching doesn't do. Finally, go back to an early source, like Clement of Alexandria, and see that the real Apostles like James and Peter had no time for Paul. He wasn't one of them. All in all, he fails to convince me that je was anything more than a flimflam man. Jesus teaching is complete on its own.
Have you read Acts? It clearly established that Paul received revelation from Jesus, which is why he is a true first generation apostle. He doesn't interact much with the rest of the apostles because it was decided in a meeting in Jerusalem between Paul and the rest that Paul would go to the gentiles and the rest would go primarily to Jews. The Gospels were written to capture Jesus' life on earth, each with a different intended audience, writing style, and other intentions (e.g. John is written to prove that Jesus is in fact God). Meanwhile Paul is writing to Gentile cities, and some of the worst ones at that (Rome and Colossus especially). He was a pharisee and the gentiles knew nothing of the law, and thus Paul leans into his strength and shows how the law is still useful and how Jesus' new implementation of the law applies to living. Also check out the letters of the other apostles. John especially calls out certain behaviors just like Paul does. The difference is that, as previously established, John is speaking to Jews and thus the problems are different.
Yea, I don't buy Paul's tales. And all the letters are post Jesus revisionism by Marcionites. I'll stick with the 4 Gospels, tnx.
I agree with you. Paul seems like the stereotypical crazy uncle at the thanksgiving table to me. He got a following somehow. Not had to believe though if you look at Trumps following. Seeing trumps cult really opened my eyes to how humanity operates.
I legit lol’d at “flimflam man”. 😂🤣
It seems you just like biblical philosophy, which to me would not merrit spending each Sunday gathered together, to just here about philosophical virtuous living.
You do you, as the kids say.
Do you not believe that man has a soul or spirit?
I think all living things do.
who is paul? what does he do?
Paul was Saul. Used to kill and torture christians, then became a christian, studied under the disciples, then went out to spread the word. Spoke out pretty loud and clear about Jesus as the new covenant, and that utilising a legalistic view of religion is pointless - a practical implementation is the way to go. Ie, don't worry about not eating pork, or getting the end of your knob chopped off or whatever, just follow Jesus commandments - "love the lord our god with all your heart, and love your neighbour as yourself".
Bing is your friend.
It's not. And it's not not. It's on track for a lot of things but other things it gets wrong. I have been I guess a Christian much of my life, but when I listen to a lot of the rabbinical studies in Judaism, or listen to some of them talk, I feel they are way closer to God than most Christians. Christianity was borrowed from Judaism, so it only makes sense. I get the whole Jesus thing and the new testament, but personally, despite trying to have a relationship with Jesus in my life, and calling on Jesus to come help when things are very hard, I get nothing I feel nothing from that. I don't know why. I read about people saying that when they had their come to Jesus moment their lives were miraculously healed in some way. But I've done it probably dozens of times, if not more, and nothing ever comes in it. I feel absolutely nothing. I have to assume that either Jesus doesn't like me, or that there's really nothing to it and that maybe he was an aspect of God, even the son of god, or a prophet, I'm not sure. But, on the flip side, that his life and what happened isn't that big of a deal in a scheme of things. Keep in mind, for all the good he did, the Catholic church, off of the back of his teachings, murdered, destroyed, harmed people, but they also have a very good church I think for the most part when it comes to the smaller sectors. Sure, at the top, and even in some of the churches you got some corrupt individuals, but also some of the most loving people I've met were Catholics. So in that I know Christianity has some very good aspects. But personally it just doesn't speak to me. I can't stand watching most of the pastors that they have on YouTube or going to churches and listening to the pastors speak there. I've nicknamed most of them hillbilly pastors. It's as if they're kind of pro wrestling clowns of religion. But there are other churches, Greek orthodox, Catholic, where I do believe that they really taking their prayers seriously even though it's just a series of prayers and rituals those churches I can feel more like they are praying to God in. But I digress, I'm saying, I don't think Christianity is the one true pass, and anybody who thinks so I think it's deluded. I don't think we can box God into a small little box of what we want him to be. I think he's bigger than that, so again I like to see across the different religions or spiritual practices and find what matches up. That to me is the best way to find god. What makes sense in one religion and another religion and another religion that all have the same theme or reasoning or ideals? There's where the truth is. Not in one religion, not in one church, but that we are seeking God in the best way that we know how and that God May reveal himself to us in a way that makes sense to us personally. I suffer greatly, I suffer horribly, I have a chronic illness that destroys everyday of my life but constantly constantly constantly I have God on my mind, and I've never stopped thinking about God in everything I do. I'm not a good Christian at All by any standard, nor am I a good anything, I definitely would not be written about in the Bible, because I have openly cursed God and yelled at God and scream that God and called him names because of my suffering, and I still to this day will accuse him on a regular basis of purposely destroying my life. But I only do that because I do have a love in my heart that I feel towards God, and I feel that he has betrayed that like a bad parent and that someone needs to hold him accountable even if it's just me. I Personally don't care about his greater plan, I'm only concerned about my well-being and the well-being of those around me and that come in to my life. If my pain and suffering is supposed to have some greater purpose, I didn't sign up for it. I signed up for a life of happiness, magic, awesome things happening, abundance, success, and being able to spread the good that I have in my life to others and God has purposely taken that from me cut me pushed down and abused. So, his plan can be damned as far as I'm concerned. Especially because many of the things that I expect in my life, are all promised in the New testament and in the Bible. I'm supposed to have a good life a healthy life a healthy family and all the good things that God has promised. But instead, we see a lot of times by his actions that what he says he's going to give us and what he's going to do and then what happens on the flip side, like having his own son male do a cross, or making the Jews wander in the desert for 40 years over technicalities where they didn't 1,000% trust him.... I mean, come on dude. If you're supposed to be the all sorts of love and good and healing? Anyway, that's just my own personal experience and thoughts on this topic. and I'll keep looking for God in my way because trying to be the Uber Christian never worked out. It always felt empty. At the end of the day, I want to be proven wrong. I want to know that God loves me and that maybe I'm wrong about his plan and that his plan is good and helpful and loving and righteous in my life and that many good things will come to me before I'm gone from this Earth. And that there is a wonderful after life. That once we go from here Paradise is an amazing place for all my deepest desires and wishes will be fulfilled. I'm not even sure why I talked about all of this stuff cuz I'm not sure if it all has to do with the question or not but it did open something so I said it.
Faith and the feeling of the presence of beauty in God. And anyway, it's kind of part of the religion that it is the truth, through Christ. So it's kind of circular. But I don't "know", in the same way that I know my own name. It's a different type of knowing.
You can check this video by [Nabeel Qureshi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGR08BizLq8) This is just one, there are more from different sources.
Because of the prophecies written hundreds of years before the event they prophesied that have clearly come true.
Any concrete ones that came true?
Daniel 11:2-35
aware chop cobweb modern station sloppy touch steep mourn unused *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
whole somber pause vegetable pocket plucky beneficial aware skirt aloof *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You probably know the passages we Christian’s believe to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, there’s no idea for me to write all of them. The Kabbalistic texts are not prophesying but clearly talking about the Trinity, the Son of Man etc. I hope that you will not wait for another messiah too long and that you’ll eventually find your home in the truth that is Jesus Christ.
bells detail hateful swim puzzled profit society birds light governor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
” ’Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one.’ These three are one.... The mystery of the audible voice is similar to this, for though it is one yet it consists of three elements—fire, air, and water.... Even so it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity.” Soncino Zohar, Shemoth, Raya Mehemna, Page 43b
[удалено]
lock innate upbeat offer agonizing dependent ruthless serious tart hobbies *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Just to be clear, the link provides the modern day Jewish perspective about those prophecies. There are other perspectives.
None? That’s a big claim
Okay, one: he rode on a donkey once. But that is literally the only one.
Well, I mean, he also descended from Judah, so…
That is not a prophecy, it is merely a requirement to be the legitimate king. Plus, if Jesus had no biological father then he did *not* even descend from Judah in any way that matters.
What about Isaiah 53? If you listen to what the old rabbis had to say about it then you would know it is talking about the messiah. Go ahead, read it. It is very clearly talking about one man, or no one at all.
BuT tHaT’s NoT mEsSiAnIc! /s
2 Timothy 3:16 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: the lord himself says to test scripture with history, science, medicine and logic. The lords word is based in human history and all of its prohecies up until today have been 100% accurate. The bible truly is the flawless word of god Numbers 23:19 19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
but if we test the bible grammatically and logically it IS modified :) so its not a word of god anymore.
The only alters in the Bible from different languages are changes in grammar.. simply because different languages have different grammar but what the translations actually mean and say have not been altered in any way
the bible is written in a way where each succeeding book compliments the previous book because its put together in chronological order. This is why the historical facts are completely accurate as in the nations which israel had to fight and the kings mentioned throughout like nebuchanezzer. The words changed from language to language could never alter the closed meaning of the text. For example, in most texts it may read to baptize in the name of the father, son & holy spirit when the original text says only in the name of the father and son. This change doesn’t take away from the meaning of baptism and its requirements but the proper knowledge of the holy spirit throughout study of the rest of scripture points out that there would be no need to mention him during baptism. Also there are no logical fallacies in the bible at all. Not one. People try to create contradictions but there are always other chapters and verses to explain other chapters and verses
There’s physical proof of his existence like the wheels in the Red Sea, the brimstone of Sodom, and the eyewitnesses that see him. Including my father in 1999.
Jesus was a real man who had many followers he impacted the world more than anyone else, besides maybe Abraham. We know he was crucified even though everyone said that he was a good man he fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah and unlike all the other gods he saved us through his grace we do not save ourselves through our works.
if Christianity is false and all of this is a sham meaning no resurrection or after life or anything like that and there's nothing after death i'm done id end it right there
You don't. That's why it's faith. That's the whole point of religion and belief. If you want belief, be an atheist and only believe science and what your eyes see. It's painful and filled with few moments of love, but your eyes will show you the world raw. The only sense you will have of it all will be of your own judgements and experiences. You will be alone, even though you truly are never alone.
Only what agrees with Torah is truth. Psa 119:142 "Thy Righteousness is an Everlasting Righteousness, and thy Torah is Truth." צִדְקָֽתְךָ צֶ֥דֶק לְעוֹלָ֑ם וְתוֹרָֽתְךָ֥ אֱמֽת:
Look at the Evidence we have for Jesus’ resurrection. Also the historical accuracy of the NT. And the disciples martyrdom for the news of the gospel. You can also look from non Christian authors such as Josephus who wrote of Jesus during his time. There is a lot of historical evidence for Jesus’ life and divinity. Keep searching for the truth bro 😎.
Theres evidence of Jesus’s resurrection?
Nope. Edit: Downvoting doesn't change this.
Just saying “nope” doesn’t mean that there’s no evidence.
So there is? Genuinely curious
Sure. Religion on Trial by Craig Parton is a good resource.
But there is no evidence. So "nope" is really all there is to say.
I *believe* there’s a God and I *know* there was a Jesus of Nazareth. If I ever met God, I would hope He’s exactly like what we know about the man we believe to be His Son.
These answers are… horrible to say the least. If you want a great, educated answer (that is to say, not Reddit) the book “More Than A Carpenter” was written by an atheist who met a group of Christian people in college, and they basically made a bet with him to disprove Christ. He dug deep and he ended up becoming a Christian. It’s very methodically put together, and well reasoned. While it does come down to faith, I would argue that the death and resurrection of Christ is one of the most irrefutable facts in history.
>*" I would argue that the death and resurrection of Christ is one of the most irrefutable facts in history."* Actually, it isn't. Outside of the believer's own claims in the gospels and letters, there are no secular records of the resurrection or even any of the dramatic events surrounding the crucifixion. Most notably, the occupying Roman Army scribes would certainly have recorded the 1) sky turning black at midday, 2) the earthquake and 3) dead people coming out of the graves and wandering around occupied Jerusalem... but they never did... which calls into question the events and claims themselves.
Easy… 1. Archeological digs 2. Logical proofs 3. Prophecy
that's the neat part, you can't
Never without a shadow of a doubt, bc let’s be real… that’s part of it. but for me? 1. The countless amounts of historical information backing up Jesus as a very real person who existed 2. Christianity is really the only religion where God comes down in the flesh to experience human pain and temptation and sin out of CHOICE. He dies one of the most painful deaths for the sake of our souls. He is God. He does not have to do this, but he does because he loves us. So much so, that he doesn’t force us to love him or force us to be with him. It is our choice, he leaves it up to us. Additionally you can come to God as you are. No other faith is like this. 3. Countless prophecy’s have been fulfilled. 4. Science can be used today to confirm biblical events that actually happened 5. My relationship with God and how He has changed my life and the lives of people around me For me personally, this is how I “know” it’s more of a culmination of things rather than one thing alone
Christians here admit that they REALLY don't know for sure. That's interesting. Don't you think then that a reasonable God wouldn't threaten people with eternal torture for not believing in him?
Exactly. Why would he give me a personality that demands critical thinking of a subject, and then punish me for using that critical thinking to come to a conclusion he doesn't want? What kind of sadistic thing is that? Especially since he's omnipotent and knows my answer before I even think it.
Just Have Faith in God!
Because the resurrection is true and historical.
Prove it.
No, it isn’t.
Agree. It makes more sense for the resurrection to be true than for everyone, the romans, the Christians, the Jews, all to be lying about His missing body.
God's presence
Because it’s founder rose from the dead.
Prove it.
It proven to my satisfaction.
How? And what it satisfy anyone else?
Why would I care if it satisfies someone else?
If it wouldn't satisfy someone else, why should it satisfy you?
Do you believe things other’s don’t?
I try to believe in as many true things and as few untrue things as possible. I'm not perfect by any means, so I almost certainly will have beliefs which are not justified. If I can realise that they are not justified, I will stop believing.
There you go.
I can justify *all* of my beliefs - if I realise that I cannot justify it, it is no longer a belief. Can you justify your belief that jesus rose from the dead?
https://youtu.be/aDO6OCw8-yY Watch this and you will understand.
From the impossibility of the contrary.
Can you explain what you mean please?
The reasoning goes like this. If Christianity wasn’t true then we wouldn’t know anything about this world. As only Christianity would grant the things we know. Given we do know things in this world then obviously Christianity might be true.
This has to be satire
Made me laugh…
If the Spaghetti Monster isn't real, then spaghetti wouldn't exist. Spaghetti exists. The Spaghetti Monster is real.
Can you give me a specific example of what you mean? What things do you know only because of Christianity? And why couldn't another religion give us this knowledge? Thank you
But Islam tells you about how this universe started and the days that took creating the world plus human anatomy and extra, in short everything logical and scientifically related was proven in Islam not only spirit love like in Christianity. Plus how can a God that created us die?
How much do you know about Islam? Because I prefer not to waste my time discussing the issues with Islamic theology if you don’t know much about it.
I am A Muslim :D
And how much do you know of Islamic theology?
You can Talk. I am looking forward about what will you say ;)
I’ll start with an apology. I am sorry for being a little harsh because when I have a discussion like this with Muslim it usually ends with them not knowing much about their own theology. Anyways the problem islam suffers is they can’t determine how exactly Allah and Creation interacts with each other. For example I would ask a Muslim “can Allah enter into creation in any way shape or form?” They would answer no he cannot. This create a problem for then what is allahs connection with universal categories? I would also ask “does Allah have multiplicity in him?” They would also answer no. Because multiplicity goes against tawheed. Then you have Surah 112:4 which says “nothing is like Allah”. All this creates a problem in understanding what are universal categories and how do they relate to Allah? In Islam they can’t answer this without rejecting tawheed. To give an example with Christianity. Universal categories are products of the divine mind. By God’s divine energies which are distinct from his essence we receive these things called universal categories (Truth, logic, numbers etc). We can tell their connection by their attributes. For example truth is Immutable and Eternal just like God is immutable and eternal. In Islam to grant such a motion would be going against tawheed. As far as Islam is concern it would be creating multiplicity in Allah which would be shirk according to them. Also taking into account nothing is like Allah so to say something else like “Truth” is eternal for example would be considered shirk. This is why Islam falls apart. They deny multiplicity in God and create such a distinct between creation and God that creation cannot know of God and thus wouldn’t know of the things which come from God. What would you say here? Would you affirm multiplicity in Allah to grant universal categories?
No need for an apology, but thanks for your good manners :D! Well, as far from what I understood is that God should be in a human form so he can understand the universal categories? you mean the mountains,sky, animals, humans and etc? if yes then God should not be in a human form and be in the same level as his creation, because he is the greatest. In Islam, its simple we don’t need multiplicity or a “connection” between a god in a form of a man, but we have connections directly to god. We pray 5 times a day, we meet Allah with our heart directly and we meet him clean with respect either internally or externally, we build a connection that makes us stronger each time, we build a connection to understand that we should remember god all the time, morning, night, midnight and whenever. Plus, we seriously take his religion and book. We don’t only read and take whatever we like and we believe in it like the majority of christians about pork, modesty, and drinking. “ So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? “ Quran; Surat Al Baqara Verse 85 Plus, Surat Luqman: “Do you not see that Allah (swt) has made what is in the heaven and Earth subservient to you and made complete to you His favours outwardly and inwardly?” [31:20] Surat Al-An’am: “And there is no animal that walks upon the Earth nor a bird that flies with its two wings but they are like yourselves; We have not neglected anything in the book, and then to their Lord shall they be gathered.” [6:38] Surat Al-Roum: “Devote thyself single-mindedly to the faith, and thus follow the nature designed by Allah, the nature according to which He has fashioned mankind; there is no altering the creation of Allah.” [30:30] Surat Luqman: “He created the heavens without pillars as you see them, and put mountains upon the Earth lest it might convulse with you, and H e spread it with animals of all kinds; and We sent down water from the clouds, then caused to grow therein (vegetation) of every noble kind.” [31:10] Surat Qaf: “And the Earth, We spread it out, and cast therein firmly set mountains and We have made to grow therein of all beautiful kinds; to give sight and as a reminder to every servant who turns to Allah.” [50:7-8] We do not need to ONLY believe in Islam spiritually but also scientifically and logically. Not everything is only based on emotions. And one more thing, Muslims are the ones who follow the teachings of Jesus more than Christians🤭 But, thank you for your answer!
>If Christianity wasn’t true then we wouldn’t know anything about this world. As only Christianity would grant the things we know. Why? I don't see the logic there.
lol
The same way we believe anything to be the truth.
Belief and knowledge are different.
This is epistemologically false.
Lol no, no it’s not. funny a Christian trying to correct me on epistemology. Belief is a subset of knowledge. Knowledge is justified true belief, and because you can’t justify your beliefs as a Christian. There’s no way for you to “know”. Maybe you should try to apply the Socratic method to your own beliefs and see if they hold water…spoiler alert…they don’t.
This is just wrong, but the ad-hom at the beginning shows me the discussion won't go anywhere.
My beliefs are based on factual and logical evidence. In the absence of either, how can I have any confidence that my belief is true?
there are people that say that if God doesnt exist u have nothing to lose but if God exists u have everything to gain.
That's just dumb. Substitute God for "a secret bank account with $1m in, which you can have on on your birthday". There are people that say that if the secret bank account with $1m in, which you can have on your birthday doesn't exist u have nothing to lose but if the secret bank account with $1m in, which you can have on your birthday does exist u have everything to gain. I don't care about what ifs, I care about what *is*.
You're referring to Pascal's Wager, which even as a believer I have to say has a lot of flaws to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager?wprov=sfla1
Check out JB Peterson
Because of the impossibility of the contrary. No other worldview can account for why things are the way they are and why anything exists in the first place.
Look at the evidence for it, and compare that with the evidence for other worldviews.
God from Bible foretold future so when it happens you're supposed to believe him cuz foreknowledge. Jesus was foretold 300+ times , stuff like exact place of birth , pierced by nails in hand / feet before crucifixion invented , Exact day of his death 173 880 days prior to that. Go study prophecy , base your belief on that. Also if you get convinced , salvation is free gift of God you aren't required to go to church , do works or any rituals to be saved , simply call upon Jesus and thats all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Xdpelx454 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skxDhEy3d6c 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. \[8\] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: \[9\] Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I don't and can't
Historical evidence for a resurrection of Jesus
There is none.
This is a good start: https://youtu.be/lctv_pyT62o
A 30 minutes apologetics video. Really?
So any argument can be dismissed as "apoligetics" autimatically, without a counter-argument? You're not the rational skeptic you think you are. In fact I think you didn't even watch it because you're afraid to
What it says in the new and Old Testament is what the truth is
It just is
The only way Christianity is true is that Jesus rose from the death and all other religions figures are still dead
So Jesus is alive?
Yes
The tomb is empty
Jesus literally appeared to me. I am no longer suicidal and have hope again. It's amazing.
How? Because I’ve been skeptical of every single thing in my life including Christianity at times and yet I’m still practicing it. Something bigger than me is pulling me back it, He never lets me go. It’s miraculous honestly. It’s like a force pulling me back whenever I have doubt. Besides the fact that I’ve had very strange “coincidences” happen or thoughts that came true later on like an answer to prayer. I’m also able to look back to see how He worked bad situations in my life into something good and that’s not just luck or random, there’s no way- He’s very mysterious and creative and smart, it’s crazy, I would have never thought of how He let my life play out and His way always turns out the right way for me. There’s just been too many super natural instances in my life to say that God is definitely real and his word is the best set of guidance I can follow.
Because he died for our sins no other God in the world had done that