Jesus Christ is the third most popular role model for children in Britain, according to adults surveyed in a new poll released Friday.
CP HOME
> Intl > Overseas
U.K. Poll: Jesus Third Most Popular Role Model for Children
By
Ethan Cole
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Feb. 29 2008 04:41 PM EST
[-] Text [+]
Steve,
It is fine to try to reinterpret something, but in interpretation the goal should always be to get closer to the original meaning, not further. For instance, if I say that I desire to reinterpret exactly what Martin Luther King did, that would be fine, perhaps our current understanding of that movement is flawed. But if I then say, "MLK was mostly definitely a white supremicist!" Then I would be overstepping my bounds of interpretation. Interpretation is only meaningful if it actually does get closer to the heart of an event/word.
(Sorry to use an example from the states, I am sure you know MLK though!)
Chris
Dear ironpillar, I think your getting rusty, Steve
Let's read what God's word says about idolaters - Rev.21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and IDOLATERS, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. What is the solution? Repent, turn from your sin and follow Jesus.
Side Note* Doesn't seem like a day has past since our Lord's crucifixion. Only changes are technologies and characters. Let's see what God says about stubborness 1Sam15:23 And stubborness is as inquity and idolatry.
"I see you have taken the discredit the evidence route"
Not at all, we both have the same writings before us, all I'm doing is interpreting them diffrently to you. Its what a good historian would do by asking how we are interpreting the material. Remember, until the lions have their own historians, tales around the campfire will always favour the hunter.
Steve
Also, it is always X vs Y, to say otherwise it to buy into a myth.
I say the Resurrection was a historical event and the Gospels accurately record that event, and you say that it was not. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we?
Either way, we can't both be right, one of us is wrong and has a faulty worldview.
Thanks for your time,
Chris
Steve,
Thanks for responding. I see you have taken the discredit the evidence route. That is fine and a valid form of criticism. First, I think it should be said that most view Mark's Gospel as the earliest written Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke reffered to it. It is true that the earliest manuscripts do not have the actual account of the Resurrection, but it does not give an alternative ending, rather it just ends somewhat abruptly. The addition was probably made because the ending was so abrupt, and was most likely modeled after Matthew and Luke. Nonetheless, the Gospel of Mark does acknowledge the Resurrection and says:
Mark 16: 6 "Don't be alarmed," he (the angel) said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him..."
It isn't that Mark doesn't have the Resurrection, it just doesn't have the details Matthew and Luke do.
The Gospel of John was written last probably towards the end of the 1st Century, and John was probably contemplating more on what the life and teachings of Christ meant. Though there are many differences, there are no contradictions in the message, and little reason to believe that it is not historical. This account was still written very close to the life of Jesus by ancient standards. I do challenge you on your assumption that John was influenced by the gnostic message. The entire NT was always clearly not gnostic, and John's Gospel is no exception.
In any case, you have brought some legitimate questions, but nothing that would make us say, "Well the Bible is obviously not accurate in its account of the Resurrection"
Hi Chris
But is it really evidence that I really need to discredit the , I don't think so. What needs to be done is understand the evidence for what it is, I don't see it as adverserial task.
An example would be to revisit the synoptic gospels and understand them as representing diffrent early Christian communites say Jerusalem and Antioch. etc.. Another interesting question to ask would be " why does the earliest versions of Marks gospel contain nothing abotut the ressurection, was that added later by another Christian community. Then we could ask why is Johns gospel so diffrent to the synoptics, why so gnostic influenced, what community does this represent. These are just starters...
I don't see it as X v Y, but rather to say we try to understood the context of the source documents correctly.
Steve
Steve,
Good to see you back! Yes I am envious, but my time is coming soon, going on a week long vacation with my wife and her family, towards the end of March.
No you wouldn't need outside of evidence to disprove something that has no basis in history such as say a unicorn. However, a unicorn has no real evidence in the first place. If someone said, "You will never believe this I saw a unicorn! And I have a video of it!" Then you would have something to deal with, but there is no such evidence. This is just the same as bigfoot, people sometimes swear by it and show videos, but there is no proof of a Bigfoot anywhere, not to mention there would have to be a semi large population of Bigfoots just to keep the species alive.
What we have in Jesus' case, is good historical evidence that He was a historical figure, and a strong argument that His Resurrection was grounded in reality. (See William Lane Craige VS Bart Erhman) Since we have positive evidence for this event, what a critic must do is either discredit the evidence (tried not accomplished) or find alternative sources that challenge the veracity of the evidence (tried, failed miserably). Of course this doesn't mean you have to accept it, but it does mean that it is fully rational to believe in this, and may be irrational to exclude the possibillity.
(With the unicorn it is not circular reasoning, we would say, "There is next to no evidence for unicorns, therefore I do not believe in them" With the Resurrection, you are saying, "Despite the evidence, I do not believe in the Resurrection, because resurrections do not happen" Do you see the difference?)
Chris
Hi Chris
Been away a few days and was no where near a computer ( yes I know your jealous, it was lovely).
You may be quite right that it is circular reasoning to say the ressurection did not occur because It does not happen in the world at all. What is wrong with that though, do I need an outside source to confirm that ressurections do not take place. I have never see a unicorn but I' don't think you would call it circular reasoning if I said that therefore I don't believe they exist
Steve
I believe that yes, there are other gods but these gods are demons and the devil. they can perform miracles but require something of you like your life. that is why there is such things as suicide bombers and Kamikazes and suicides. but God does not require that, that is why he is the true God. that is why God is so important to the formation of countries.
Eat,
Agentorange,
Several things should be said, first, miracles are not indicative of the truth. Jesus never said, "And you will know the true way, because it will be littered with miracles" Indeed, there is a warning in the Bible that others would perform miracles and claim to be the right way. In any case, there is more to faith than miracles.
In my case, it would have been impossible for a placebo effect. That being said, I am sure some genuine believers do experience something that might be deemed a "placebo effect" (I say might be deemed, because I believe all things are from God and so nothing is really a placebo effect) That is fine.
Finally, it is more than just evidence that makes up our faith. Yes the evidence we have (both personal and objective) strengthens our faith and reassures us, and yes God can use these means to bring us to Him, but our faith is based upon the work of the spirit in our lives. There is nothing I am surer of than the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
What I would challenge you to do, is see what worldview makes the most sense and is the most coherent, in its entirety. And while doing that pray to God that He would work in your life (if He exists). Of course, if you don't want an answer, or are happy with what you have, then by all means don't search for it! But I know the peace in my life, I see the Spirit working in my life, and I wish you could have the same thing too.
Chris
chris, I am not saying by other religons existing does it negate yours, but what I am saying is christianity and all its wonderous claims on miracles and the like are hardly unique. We have other devotees from other religons that swear by witnessed miracles....so the question goes back to this - why do followers of other religions experience the same sorts of *micracles* and credit their god (allah, vishnu, etc.) as being the deliverer of these gifts?
Why do we have people swear upon shamans and other mystics that alledgadly perfrom miracles? The point I am trying to make is, why do these other groups think they have answered prayers and miracles at all if they are, by your own admission, not following the correct deity?
Couldn't it be equally as likely that not only these devotees, but yours included are all victims of the placebo affects of wanting to believe in certain outcomes? IE they have belief in belief! Take for instance when a visiits the hospital for surgery and later they will (oddly enough) credit god as being the sole reason for their successfull surgery. Yes, say nothing of the medicine, nor of the surgeons or anyone else involved and credit with what they want to believe fixed them.
orange said " The average life span back then was 45 tops."
Where did you get that number? Outside of the Bible, life expectancy for that time period is merely conjecture.
Also,
Noah was not a Jew, Abraham came later.
The Bible is a very reliable historical document. Many old testament cities have been found right where the Bible said they were. Sodom and Gomorrah have been located and, through archaeogical digs, they've determined that it was destroyed the way the Bible says it was. The same is true for Jericho.
Agentorange,
Firstly, many many ancient religions including greek, Chinese, Hindu, and Judaism have in their histories people who originally lived very long times and then gradually decreased in years. There are not a whole lot of written works back then that say, "And people lived 45 years at the most"
And your comment on belief and knowledge is a bit off. I don't know what the current definition of the word belief is. I do know that it is not mere conjecture. For a Christian, it is based on a great deal of evidence, both objective and subjective. What I mean by, God convicts us. Is that it is not only the ancient records and the Bible that give us our faith in God, nor the archaeological evidence, nor even miracles that some of us have witnessed, rather it is the work of God in us, through these means and many more, but ultimately of the Spirit. (I know this doesn't mean anything to you, it shouldn't) You compared Christianity to Hinduism, that is crazy Hinduism has changed so much over its history, it looks nothing like it originally did. We can actually see it being created and changed. The story of Christianity has remained the same (in the Bible) and unlike Hinduism, due to better understanding of ancient languages and archaeological discoveries, we are actually getting closer to what Christianity was "originally". Here is an example in secular terms though. Say one guy says the Earth moves around the sun in eliptical orbit, and another perfectly circular orbit. Well both "believe" something, one is based on surer footing and more evidence, the other not so. This is exactly the same with Christianity and other religions and atheism. You can't just say, "OH there are other religions, that means nothing is true, I can't figure out anything, and we will be lost forever" Just like scientists don't throw up their hands and say, "OH NO, there are two competing ideas on how this works!!! We can never know....nooooooo" (Sorry, I get carried away) Rather, both theists and scientists work to find which idea fits the pieces better. Some religions say, "Hey we believe in miracles too" That is fine, elliptical and circular orbits are both relatively round, and without discernment and a closer look at the facts you could mistake which is right. Knowledge is not superior to belief, in fact all knowledge is grounded in belief of some kind. You cannot say, "I know 100%" (even scientists wont do this with our most supported laws) Rather we take things on evidence. We believe we will wake up tomorrow because the evidence and past experiences say we will. Christians believe in God, because of hard evidence, and the working of the Spirit in their hearts. You cannot just say, "Oh yours is a belief, it is inferior, how could you fall for something so inferior" The argument is just not there.
agentornery, there are other views of the flood. I am glad to notice that you are familiar with signs of a bottle neck, even though it seems earlier than the date given by James Ussher, commonly used by YEC.
"Wow, that's like trying to estimate the population the the US by using the populations of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. That is REALLY accurate."
No, what I am saying is by our records alone we know there were more than the 2 million jews only 3000 years ago. Many, many milloins more in fact. Since you think all people decdended from these 6-8 people, why don't we see any genetic bottle neck dating back to around this period? We can find other genetic bottle necks much further back but nothing that suggests all living people desended from 6 people 3000 years ago. Why can we identify a last common ancestor that had blue eyes some 8-10,0000 years ago, and yet obvoiusly no jews or any semetics had blue eyes, or real anglo traits.
The no-way flood supposedly occured right between the 5th and 6th egyptian dynasties yet they and many other coultures went on totally uninterupted. in fact, only about a decade after the flood was the time the pyramids were built, so how could only a handfull of people build them. obvoiusly, the flood is wrong.
If only 6 people were around, how did all the races come be about in such a short time from such a small group? and ontop of that how did all the differnt blood types come from just 6 people?
Yaaaa. sorry, I am going to need something a little more objective that probe ministries.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/31/77/
Also, the Bible is a very reliable historical document. Many old testament cities have been found right where the Bible said they were. Sodom and Gomorrah have been located and, through archaeogical digs, they've determined that it was destroyed the way the Bible says it was. The same is true for Jericho.
"Well we do have recors in some of the empires around that time so we know some of the populations, and no they don't line up with 10 million either."
Wow, that's like trying to estimate the population the the US by using the populations of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. That is REALLY accurate.
My "unadulterated" numbers show that 6 people can populate to 700 million. Even at 50 million people, that's only 7% of the original number. I'm sure that would cover any famines incurred.
"Where did you get that number? Outside of the Bible, life expectancy for that time period is merely conjecture. "
Oh, so now anything outside the bible is mere conjecture on population figures huh? Well we do have recors in some of the empires around that time so we know some of the populations, and no they don't line up with 10 million either.
I mean look at your figures over that 1000 year period, it shows populations doubling every 40 years, which is about a 3.3% growth rate, howerver this type of growth rate doesn't even occur now and the closet it ever came was post industrial revolution as the amount of food increased. Remember all those famines I mentioned? You're not even going to acknowledge them are you?
"And yet, it's totally plausible to repopulate from 6 people to 10 milion in 1000 years."
yah, if every woman has like 8 kids, they all survive and virtually no one dies, and they have no constraints due to the carrying capacity.
" The average life span back then was 45 tops."
Where did you get that number? Outside of the Bible, life expectancy for that time period is merely conjecture.
And yet, it's totally plausible to repopulate from 6 people to 10 milion in 1000 years.
"after all...we went from app 150 mill in 1 ad to over 8 billion in 2000 years...."
8 Billion huh 'numbers guy'. the worlds population is around 6.6 billion, not 8. and the vast majority of the growth has occured in the past 150 years SINCE THE INDUSTRICAL REVOLUTION!
In 1800 we had less than a billion and today we have grown by a factor of 6X in 200 years!!! While the preveious 2000 years the population grew by a much slower factor, how hard is that to comprehend?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
“The average lifespan to be only 100 years (waaay lower than it was back then)”
No it’s not. The average life span back then was 45 tops. Can you find any records outside the bible that show people living over even 100 years back then? No, you can’t and in your horrid logic have no problem pulling from a single source for your data….pathetic.
"after all...we went from app 150 mill in 1 ad to over 8 billion in 2000 years....
So I think to get from 6 people to even 20 million is more that plausible. "
Hey prophet way to switch and bait from another topic. try to stay on dark matter and finish it out. Prophet, you're neglecting that around 1800 we didn't even have a billion people yet and in most of that 6 billion people growth occured most recently since the Industrial Revolution. Your figures totally ignored how all those famines occured as well.
“Epistemology has never been my strong point but, sure there is a difference between belief and knowing, but it is not something that makes knowing superior to belief.”
Actually it is, in fact that’s the key difference. To believe is not the same as to know, they aren’t the same thing. Look up that site I mentioned and refer to the differences between simple ‘belief’,’ knowledge’ and ‘truth’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
“ In fact what we believe is indeed based upon what we know (sorry to any who think Christianity is a leap in the dark).”
What we know equated as ‘knowledge’ is different from what we may believe. Knowledge and knowing something refers to an objective understanding thats undergone testing to ensure it's on the path towards truth, where as belief is something that is subjective and generally currently unsupported. (see Science Hypothesis)To suggest we ‘know’ something implies we have a certain level of assertion of facts, while a mere belief isn’t backed by much.
“We know certain things and have been convicted by God, and therefore we trust the promises God has given us. “
Convicted? Like what?
"Sometimes knowledge comes after belief though, for instance a scientist will make a hypothesis and then try to discover whether his hypothesis is correct or not. "
Yes, this is how knowledge is gained Knowledge always comes after a belief (or hypothesis) has been critically tested.
"In any case, to say knowing is somehow better than belief, or to say that Christianity is "blind faith" is just rationally wrong and has little to do with epistemology.”
Knowledge is superior to mere belief, unlike belief knowledge is backed by critical testing which conforms objective data and is closer to epistomological 'truth' than mere belief.
after all...we went from app 150 mill in 1 ad to over 8 billion in 2000 years....
So I think to get from 6 people to even 20 million is more that plausible.
Those numbers reflect the number from that generation and any previous generations still alive. If even HALF were killed off by starvation, it would still leave over 352 million people on earth 1000 years after the flood. 1/4 survival rate would leave 176 million.
Those numbers are very reasonable.
I know that orange thinks I'm wierd, but I'm a numbers guy too. And going back to the repopulation of the world after the flood, all my calculations show that it is very much possible to repopulate into the hundreds of millions in only 1000 years.
I even used extremely conservative numbers.
If you started with 6 people. Using the average number of children to be 4 (which is low for the average of that time). The average lifespan to be only 100 years (waaay lower than it was back then), and using 40 years as the point of conception (i.e. by the time the couple was 40 they would have all four children). Those numbers are close (except maybe the number of offspring) to what it is today. And lets say that those 6 had their children withing 10 years after the flood.
0 year: 6 people
10 year: 18
40 year: 42
80 years: 78
120 years: 168
160 years: 336
200 years: 672
240 years: 1344
280 years: 2688
320 years: 5376
360 years: 10,752
400 years: 21,504
440 years: 43, 008
480 years: 86,016
520 years: 172,032
560 years: 344,064
600 years: 688,128
640 years: 1,376,256
680 years: 2,752,512
720 years: 5,505,024
760 years: 11,010,048
800 years: 22,020,096
840 years: 44,040,192
880 years: 88,080,384
920 years: 176 mill
960 years: 352 mill
100 years: 704 mill
"In any case, the Bible sometimes says the whole world, when it is clear from the context that it means the local world. This is not wrong, it is perfectly acceptable. Many many civilizations did the same thing, fully knowing that they did not literally mean the whole world,"
I couldn't agree more, but Star and prophet and other YEC think it was worldwide and don't consider the other passages in the bible that denote 'world wide' and yet no one ever suggests that Rome was being taxed by the world as it's mentioned in the bible. Rather, it's from a local or regional.
“And just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean you won't face Him one day.”
I’d believe it, if there were credible extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim to begin with. Is there anyway you can prove gods existence objectively (at least to me) somehow right now, any suggestions? hint, hint, objective evidence isn't appealing to your prayers, that would be subjective.
“I've never seen an atom. True. So I take it by faith that what the scientists say about them are true. Same as with God. I take by faith that what the Bible says is true. “
Except scientists don’t rely on fear mongering to compel people to accept atoms or dark matter. Rather, they just provide the details and evidence and let rational based people decide. We have indirect observable, testable evidence for atoms and dark matter. God…not so much. All we have is personal, subjective opinions like yours and your hearsay miracles.
“I cannot see gravity. True. But I can see the effects of gravity. Same as with God.”
Gee, that’s funny, why can other followers of other faiths see, what they call evidence, for their gods? Why do Muslims, Hinduism and so on seemingly have evidence for their gods too?
You were earlier comparing dark matter to god, we have observable, repeatable, testable evidence for dark matter. God, not so much. Testing the supernatural isn’t something science does.
Also Agentorange,
Epistemology has never been my strong point but, sure there is a difference between belief and knowing, but it is not something that makes knowing superior to belief. In fact what we believe is indeed based upon what we know (sorry to any who think Christianity is a leap in the dark). We know certain things and have been convicted by God, and therefore we trust the promises God has given us. Sometimes knowledge comes after belief though, for instance a scientist will make a hypothesis and then try to discover whether his hypothesis is correct or not. In any case, to say knowing is somehow better than belief, or to say that Christianity is "blind faith" is just rationally wrong and has little to do with epistemology.
One point of clarification,
Agentorange,
It is not that I do not believe the flood was a world wide event, rather it is that I see two possible scenarios that are fully consistent with scriptures, and I simply do not have the scientific expertise to make an educated decision about the nature of the flood. (I have heard good arguments that it was world wide, and good arguments that it was local) In any case, the Bible sometimes says the whole world, when it is clear from the context that it means the local world. This is not wrong, it is perfectly acceptable. Many many civilizations did the same thing, fully knowing that they did not literally mean the whole world, the Romans for one, declared themselves the conquerers of the world, and yet there were many places they knew they hadn't conquered and there were other people out there. In my low opinion, either there was a world wide flood, and your information is flawed, or there was a local flood and proponents of the world wide flood are flawed. Either way, nothing happens to my faith or ability to literally interpret the Bible.
God be with you all,
Chris
semantics: man's attempt to justify whatever reasoning, however obtuse, that he has about a certain topic.
And just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean you won't face Him one day.
I've never seen an atom. True. So I take it by faith that what the scientists say about them are true. Same as with God. I take by faith that what the Bible says is true.
I cannot see gravity. True. But I can see the effects of gravity. Same as with God.
‘You like to think that I'm some kind of hillbilly Christian, so please explain the difference between "believing" and "accepting as evidence".”
If you’re going to openly admit to being some country bumpkin, then I will admit you are. If you understand the epistemological differences between ‘truth’, ‘knowledge’ and belief’ then you’d know why simply ‘belief’ isn’t the same as ‘knowing’ in any proposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
"If i didn't believe in gravity, would I still fall if I jumped off a bridge? '
Of course you would, that's a rhetorical question, you knew the answer and still you asked. One doesn't have to know EVERYTHIING about gravitational theory (we still don't fully understand it mind you) to appreciate that when jumping off a bringe you will fall towards the earth. A young or retarded person might not realize this, but most everyone does b/c they, depsite not knowing anything about gravitational theory (like you) are fully aware and realize that action A of jumping off a bridge results in action B of them falling back to earth. One need not fully understand a theory to see and understand smaller more obvious aspects of it.
orange,
"I don't believe in dark matter, I ACCEPT it as evdience based conclusion and realms of independent testing. Just like you ACCEPT Atoms, even though you, or anyone can't indiviudidually identify a single atom"
Are you a politician? You are good at double talk. "I don't "believe" in dark matter, I just "accept" it as evidence." You like to think that I'm some kind of hillbilly Christian, so please explain the difference between "believing" and "accepting as evidence".
If i didn't believe in gravity, would I still fall if I jumped off a bridge?
"You and I are more alike than you realize. I believe in a God you can't see. You believe in a dark matter that you can't see."
I don't believe in dark matter, I ACCEPT it as evdience based conclusion and realms of independent testing. Just like you ACCEPT Atoms, even though you, or anyone can't indiviudidually identify a single atom. We accept these things, not b/c we are told if we don't we go to hell like religions use and resort to using fear mongering to believe in such propositions.
Could you imagine a scientist saying believe in atoms of you're going to hell? No, that wouldn't ever happen and everyone would view this argument as being the result of non-credible evidence which is why the person is resorting to using fear to compell people to believe his proposition in the first place.
Star, if you told me specifics for how god works, and so on it would be easier to know when he's behind such favorable outcomes as opposed to pure happenstance or coincidence. that's what I am saying.
orange,
You and I are more alike than you realize. I believe in a God you can't see. You believe in a dark matter that you can't see.
"God moves in mysterious ways and one day you will know that."
This is so typical star, when at a lost of words, they openly admit to not understanding how their god works and yet they want others to believe in such propositions...okaay.
agentorange
God moves in mysterious ways and one day you will know that.
agentorange
Re: unique and so very similar.
That is so very true.
“God gave me a revelation of hell one Sunday morning in a Baptist Church and I went forward during invitation time and I asked Jesus to save me.”
Oh really? What happened?
’No so. You know nothing about how God convicts a sinner.”
No, but I know why the bible refers to allowing for the priest to ‘have the child’ for up till a certain age, and then let others have ‘the man.’
It’s quite obvious, pump religion into the kid while they can’t think critically, have no rational based judgment and *wola* they’re more likely to be religious.
”God directed me to the scripture that was pertinent to my circumstances and need.”
Well, which is it? Is is boredom that brought you to read the book or god, pick one and stick with it already sheesh.
'What do you mean by this statement?"
You're unique, we all are. we're all snowflakes, unique and so very similar.
"Well, what kind of excuse you going to make for me? I got saved at 17. Totally rational. Well thought out. Nothing fairytale about it."
ya, this comming from the guy who ignored all those world wide famines that lasted many years on his way of making up numbers to make 8 people (somehow) reproduce into 6 billion. you honestly believe in a literal world wide noah flood don't you?
agentorange
Re: But alas, you are star and that’s what makes you unique.
What do you mean by this statement?
agentorange
Re:No offense star, but the notion of knowing anything , in any detail at age 8 is horrid logic.
God gave me a revelation of hell one Sunday morning in a Baptist Church and I went forward during invitation time and I asked Jesus to save me.
Re:Had you waited to you had reached the age of reason (16 or so) and of critical thinking you’d liikely laugh at the notions in it like all other religious books.
No so. You know nothing about how God convicts a sinner.
Re: But alas, you are star and that’s what makes you unique.
I am glad you think I am unique.
Re:So boredom brings you to the bible…ok. And why exactly couldn’t you read anything up till this verse?. ...Why couldn’t you read any of it prior to this verse?
God directed me to the scripture that was pertinent to my circumstances and need.
agentorange
Re:But, star, well, everything in the bible she takes as actual events, good luck talking with her, it's like talking with a brick wall.
Why should I abandon the truth for a lie?
orange,
You said "No offense star, but the notion of knowing anything , in any detail at age 8 is horrid logic. Had you waited to you had reached the age of reason (16 or so) and of critical thinking you’d liikely laugh at the notions in it like all other religious books. But alas, you are star and that’s what makes you unique."
Well, what kind of excuse you going to make for me? I got saved at 17. Totally rational. Well thought out. Nothing fairytale about it.
"I got saved initially while listening to my Pastor preach the Word of God when I was 8 yrs old"
No offense star, but the notion of knowing anything , in any detail at age 8 is horrid logic. Had you waited to you had reached the age of reason (16 or so) and of critical thinking you’d liikely laugh at the notions in it like all other religious books. But alas, you are star and that’s what makes you unique.
‘Out of boredom I picked it up and began to flip thru the pages looking for a place to read. I couldn't read anywhere until I came to Matthew 6:25-33."”
So boredom brings you to the bible…ok. And why exactly couldn’t you read anything up till this verse? What, was the previous sections in brail or something ( I am being sarcastic). Why couldn’t you read any of it prior to this verse?
1-man, your website is not much more than a bunch of ads, and your comment is spam.
star. . .go to evolution-facts.com
agentorange
Re:."Star, I thought you said the first time you sat down and read the bible was when you were in college?
That is not what I said. I said, "In my dorm room there was a Gideon Bible. Out of boredom I picked it up and began to flip thru the pages looking for a place to read. I couldn't read anywhere until I came to Matthew 6:25-33."
There is nothing in my testimony that suggests that I didn't read the Bible until I was in graduate school.
agentorange
Re:"I got saved when I was 8 yrs old. I am now 59 yrs old."Star, I thought you said the first time you sat down and read the bible was when you were in college?
I got saved initially while listening to my Pastor preach the Word of God when I was 8 yrs old. I didn't make Jesus the Lord of my life at that time and God allowed sin to bring death to my life in my relationships, in my abilities, and in my psychological well being. When I was near the end of myself in terms of having any hope of making it financially in life (having a good paying job), God intervened. Through His Word He was able to bring me to repentance. When I was faithful to my commitment to Him He supernaturally changed my life.
God uses many different means to bring a rebellious Christian or a lost person into a right relationship with Him. Those means can be by hearing the Word of God preached in Church, reading the Bible, through hearing or reading someone testimony on how God saved them, watching a soul winning movie, like the Jesus film put out by Campus Crusade for Christ, through a Christian sharing the Gospel with a lost person, and etc..
God loves the lost and wants to save them. He will use any means to bring them into a right relationship with Him. What God uses to convict a sinner of their need for Him and allowing that sinner to accept His free gift of forgiveness of sin and eternal life is different for each person. Maybe one day you will understand this.
"I got saved when I was 8 yrs old. I am now 59 yrs old. I"
Star, I thought you said the first time you sat down and read the bible was when you were in college?
first,
Believe it. no matter how you try to tell them how impossible all the things that the noah story entails theywill cling to it. I don't think Chris believes it as a world wide event, he's more rational. But, star, well, everything in the bible she takes as actual events, good luck talking with her, it's like talking with a brick wall.
"I certainly DO believe in the Noah "story" and the Resurrection!"
I don't believe it. You got to be joking.
Chris333
I respond to the statements no matter how foolish they are when I feel led by God to do so.
"Certainly no educated adult still believes in the tooth fairy, Santa, the Noah story, or the Resurrection. "
First, umm I have a degree in electrical engineering and I certainly DO believe in the Noah "story" and the Resurrection! So your statement here is flawed seeing as I am an educated adult.
(Also, to everyone who is responding to first, and commentors like him, I believe it is best just to ignore them. There posts are not worth commenting on, and no matter how much you do so, they just keep saying it. If they want a real conversation they are more than welcome to it, but they have to do so in an intelligible way, not this ridiculous garbage)
Since star responded I too will respond,
First,
Children believe in Santa and then they almost always stop believing in him. Often, fully intelligent and competent adults go their whole lives not believing, or even being against Christ, and then they come to a faith in Him. This does not hold for Santa, the tooth fairy etc. The only one here who is wishfully thinking is you.
first
Re:Christians don't believe in the Resurrection. It's just a story they tell their children. Nobody believes it after they grow up.
I got saved when I was 8 yrs old. I am now 59 yrs old. I believe the resurrection more now than I ever did. The more I know my Jesus the more I know the power of His resurrection. The power that raised Jesus from the dead is the same power that gives me life and sets me free from the law of sin and death. My Jesus is alive and He is alive in me.
Prophet,
Well said.
First,
Are you related to Bob by chance?
First,
Some things just aren't mature enough to respond to.
When people grow up they realize the stories they learned about were just pretend. First goes the tooth fairy, then Santa, then Noah, then the Resurrection. It's just a tradition to tell these harmless lies to children. There's no problem because everyone eventually grows up and figures out these are just stories for children. Certainly no educated adult still believes in the tooth fairy, Santa, the Noah story, or the Resurrection.
First,
What? Are you living in a dream?
Steve,
I am not sure how you took what I said, however, you have now said that you do not accept the Resurrection due to the fact that as far as we can see, bodies just do not do that today. This is true, but it does not mean it did not happen. You have decided that the resurrection was a myth created at a later date, based upon a presupposition that it cannot have happened. I understand what you are saying, but it is still circular reasoning. You cannot just say, "Well, the Resurrection could not have happened, because resurrections cannot happen (or otherwise do not happen today)"
For that matter, how would you interpret an "unusual" event if one occured right in front of you? Say you saw someone who was stabbed in the heart and a person healed them in front of you to be just the way they were before? (this is only a supposition and need not be true) Would you say, "Well since healing of this nature does not happen it must be an illusion"? or would you change your world view? My point is that if God exists then a resurrection is not impossible and I have no logical reason to reject Christ' resurrection, other than shear bias based upon opinion.
Well, Jesus' 12 apostles, who were quite grown up, not only believed it, but 11 of them died terrible deaths for that belief, and 1 stayed imprisoned on an island for that belief.
Christians don't believe in the Resurrection. It's just a story they tell their children. Nobody believes it after they grow up.
Hi Chris
I can't find where I wrote that I am trying to understand the ressurection in a diffrent way. I think tou may be referring to where I write about interpreting an unusual event if it occured in front of me?
I don't think it is rational to believe the ressurection occured becuase bodies do not ressurect ( I understand the diffrence between that and resusertation) look at your everday life things like ressurecton don't happen. I think you would actually have a stronger arguament if you proclaimed the ressurection to be irrational in that sense . I don't doubt that the church fathers believed something happened, I don't believe they where liars. I do though think that by then the myth was running and gained a life of it's own.
Lots more could be said by both of us no doubt...
Steve
By the way,
You were right about Josephus, we are nearly certain that the part of his writing depicting Christianity in such a favorable light was inserted later. However, we are also nearly certain that the other depictions of Christianity that he gave were not later inserted and were in fact part of the original writing. They are not so favorable towards Christianity, but they do give testament to its reality and historicity at an early date.
Steve,
The evidence we have is based upon both the extrabiblical texts and the New Testament. In fact, even if we did not have the New Testament at all, we could put the entire thing back together (saving a part of 1 John I believe) by quotes from it by the early church fathers. We have evidence that an event occured, and that the Resurrection is at least a rationally tenable position to hold.
You said however, that your goal was not to disprove the Resurrection persay, but to interpret it in a different way. I am not sure I understand what you mean by this. I hope you are not referring to a postmodern interpretation.
In any case, miracles, historical evidence, and even emotional responses are not enough to provide a real belief in God. However, these things do give evidence and glory to God, and they leave us without excuse, and God can work through any of these means to convince us of His reality and our need of Him. For me personally He has worked through all three of these means, namely rational/objective, personal/subjective, and miracles/supernatural, but I can say that these things are not the real reason for my faith in God, they only give me reassurance and bring glory to God. The real basis for my faith is God's work in me. There are people who have experienced all three of the above "reasons" and they still deny God, often if not always I believe because o