Does God exist? Part 2 (1 Viewer)

[HazzRat]

I’m assuming many of you are atheist/agnostic cause it’s 2023 and not many of us go to church anymore. However some of you may believe in a higher power so I just wondered what your stance is on God?

For me, there are a few major pitfalls that make religion a non-starter for me.

1) There is no proof. This is a relatively simple one. The only proof of God’s existence is found in a religious text or a church. If humanity was to turn back to the Stone Age, much of modern science would emerge again come a few thousand years. However completely different religions would form as none of the world’s religions would flow intuitively from the scientific method.

2) Circular reasoning. The Bible says that God exists so God exists because the Bible does. There is a reason every major religion thinks their God is divine but can not even comprehend the existence of another one.

3) Errors in the Bible - it’s almost like the writers of the Bible were human just like the rest of us . Thank you Wikipedia

4) Religious people tend to pick and chose their ethics anyway. Back in the day, Moses gifted the Abrahamic religions with the sacrosanct ‘Ten Commandments’, written directly from the word of God. And even atheists alike can agree that God did a good job of writing these Commandments as they are universal in almost every religion/worldview/philosophy. However, what is pernicious about the ‘Ten Commandments’ is that they have all been corrupted to benefit whatever God wants whatever day of the week. Even the most straightforward one: ‘Thou shall not kill’ has diverged into the Frankensteinian cross-stitch of ‘Thou shall not kill unless God says so’. Somehow the Christians were able to justify the crusades and WW1 and (albeit controversial) Muslims were able to justify the Islamic conquest. (I won’t delve into whether 9/11 was religiously or politically justified as that is a topic for another day). The same applies to the modern day where even in America - an exemplar of the personal sanctity in the international stage - the more religious a state is, the more likely it is to glorify the death penalty. See for yourself:


US states by religiosity - Wikipedia


US states by legality of the death penalty - Independent

(Please California get rid of death penalty because I want to move there one day. For now a moratorium will do.)

But this principle of ‘picking and choosing’ ethics applies to all major religions. The Catholic Church is the biggest pedophile ring in history, both sides of the Civil War found reasons to support their side, Islam has been fucking brutal throughout world history, and all abrahamic religions have found reasons to support their antisemitism (it wasn’t until 1968 that the Catholic Church ended their minor superstition that Jewish people were to blame for Jesus’ death - unfortunately they couldn’t pit anything on the Romans).

However, there is a reason I’m not completely heterodox to doing SOR II (although I do wish I was given an option). And that is because most of these stories aren’t that bad. Jesus and Moses were all good guys and it would be honourable to model your behaviour off of these two figures (Mohammed is controversial but I won’t go there). I don’t see why we can’t just see Jesus as a good Bronze Age thinker and not the divine son of literal God. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ remains truthful whatever culture you’re apart of and the Good Samaritan remains a bulwark of radical acceptance over whatever race/religion/gender/sexual orientation/culture. There is a reason that religiously motivated people assist the vulnerable and donate to good organisations in droves. That is not to say us atheists don’t have a conscience at all as evident my the multitude of secular organisations. But religion does work and there is an appeal to Jesus’ teachings.

I wrote all this on my phone in the car so I can probably finish this another day. I didn’t really get into the juicy stuff. Just because the world’s major religions don’t perceive God in the ‘correct’ way doesn’t mean there isn’t a God. Albert Einstein believed in ‘Spinoza’s God’ - basically a God which created the known universe without being concerned in the fates of human beings.

Imo, the chance of arriving in Hell tomorrow only to discover I’ve been worshipping the wrong faith, and that Norse mythology was the ‘correct’ one would be unlikely at best. However, I would arrive in Heaven the day we start debating whether there is any truth to ‘Spinoza’s God’.

Anyway, I’m out. What is your opinion?

 

[HazzRat]

*small grammar mistake - I meant ‘I don’t see why we can’t just see Jesus as a good Bronze Age thinker and not the divine son of literal God.’

 

[011235]

NB: I am a Christian.

1) There is no proof. This is a relatively simple one. The only proof of God’s existence is found in a religious text or a church. If humanity was to turn back to the Stone Age, much of modern science would emerge again come a few thousand years. However completely different religions would form as none of the world’s religions would flow intuitively from the scientific method.

Granted. There is no scientific proof for God's existence.

You imply that religious texts are inaccurate. In fact, the books of the New Testament of the Christian Bible have some of the strongest textual/manuscript history of any ancient text, and using scientific textual criticism the majority of historical scholars would agree the Bible is historically accurate.

However, it is historically accurate that;

• Jesus is a real historical figure
• Jesus died
• Many people claim to have seen him alive after he died
• Early Christians existed, were persecuted, and died because they would not renounce what they believe - including many of people who claimed to see Jesus alive after he died (why would you die for something you know is a lie?)

I won't go into detail here because this would be incredibly long, but you can find much more detailed elaborations of the above rather easily online.

2) Circular reasoning. The Bible says that God exists so God exists because the Bible does. There is a reason every major religion thinks their God is divine but can not even comprehend the existence of another one.

I don't think circular reasoning is required. My faith is evidence-based. See above.

3) Errors in the Bible - it’s almost like the writers of the Bible were human just like the rest of us . Thank you Wikipedia

You linked a page "Internal consistency of the Bible" , so I'll address that. It is my belief that the overarching message of the Bible does not contradict itself.

Furthermore, skim reading the page, there is no claim that the original texts contradict one another (please correct me if such a claim is on the page). There is a variety of claims of scribal corruption (in some cases to "improve" things, which I don't ascribe to) and manuscript differences. Using textual criticism most of these can be resolved, and the vast majority of the difficult ones are minor and not doctrinally significant.

4) Religious people tend to pick and chose their ethics anyway

I find this incredibly sad. Throughout all history there have been people from all religions, including Christianity, even today, who twist the message and pick and choose to suit their personal wants. This shows the corruption of humanity but please do not take these people to represent the beliefs of Christianity - just because they act in that name does not mean that they truly believe in it.

Unfortunately in the US Christianity has become very conflated with political position. Christianity does not ascribe to a political party, sect, etc. As a result people use it to justify their political views and get votes. Again these people act in the name of Christianity often without truly believing in it and instead perverting it for their own gain.

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

dont like religion regardless where it came from. the only thing people will subjugate themself to and ignore their instincts. i think all religions started to provide guidance or some form of salvation for its followers but it has always became a means for power, divinity etc. I come from a different culture so I'm not really influenced by christian/islamic thought but moreso the folk religion of the south with vedic elements thought but I have many muslim/christian friends from my country due to its prevalence there. had to go outside my state/country to realise that muslims/christians were completely different ppl and learn about the religious politics there which is pre insane but grateful such unity exists there.

im not atheistic but i wouldn't identify myself with religion first, id rather be seen as "Name Surname" who is a "Indian" and happens to follow tradition of "X,Y,Z". my family isn't religious as well esp. my dad who despises religion but our ancestors/parents found strength in surviving british india/casteism through god so we are still devout to X,Y,Z deities.

I think in the end of the day we can all empathise with each other, since we all pray for the same thing despite how we did or where we do it or whose names we invoke or not. We all just want the best for ourselves and others

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

NB: I am a Christian.



Granted. There is no scientific proof for God's existence.

You imply that religious texts are inaccurate. In fact, the books of the New Testament of the Christian Bible have some of the strongest textual/manuscript history of any ancient text, and using scientific textual criticism the majority of historical scholars would agree the Bible is historically accurate.

However, it is historically accurate that;

• Jesus is a real historical figure
• Jesus died
• Many people claim to have seen him alive after he died
• Early Christians existed, were persecuted, and died because they would not renounce what they believe - including many of people who claimed to see Jesus alive after he died (why would you die for something you know is a lie?)

I won't go into detail here because this would be incredibly long, but you can find much more detailed elaborations of the above rather easily online.



I don't think circular reasoning is required. My faith is evidence-based. See above.



You linked a page "Internal consistency of the Bible" , so I'll address that. It is my belief that the overarching message of the Bible does not contradict itself.

Furthermore, skim reading the page, there is no claim that the original texts contradict one another (please correct me if such a claim is on the page). There is a variety of claims of scribal corruption (in some cases to "improve" things, which I don't ascribe to) and manuscript differences. Using textual criticism most of these can be resolved, and the vast majority of the difficult ones are minor and not doctrinally significant.



I find this incredibly sad. Throughout all history there have been people from all religions, including Christianity, even today, who twist the message and pick and choose to suit their personal wants. This shows the corruption of humanity but please do not take these people to represent the beliefs of Christianity - just because they act in that name does not mean that they truly believe in it.

Unfortunately in the US Christianity has become very conflated with political position. Christianity does not ascribe to a political party, sect, etc. As a result people use it to justify their political views and get votes. Again these people act in the name of Christianity often without truly believing in it and instead perverting it for their own gain.

agreed, similar thing for mines lol. im pre sure this is not exclusive to christianity and is a consequence of any organised religion.

 

[HazzRat]

Definitely some good points made so

You imply that religious texts are inaccurate. In fact, the books of the New Testament of the Christian Bible have some of the strongest textual/manuscript history of any ancient text, and using scientific textual criticism the majority of historical scholars would agree the Bible is historically accurate.

However, it is historically accurate that;

• Jesus is a real historical figure
• Jesus died
• Many people claim to have seen him alive after he died
• Early Christians existed, were persecuted, and died because they would not renounce what they believe - including many of people who claimed to see Jesus alive after he died (why would you die for something you know is a lie?)

I won't go into detail here because this would be incredibly long, but you can find much more detailed elaborations of the above rather easily online.

I haven’t had the time to go over the details of Jesus’ life but I will aim to do that tonight.

From what I know and said in the post above:
Yes, Jesus was a real person. There are many Roman sources which mention the historical Jesus. What does need to be questioned is the separation between historical and mythical Jesus.

Again - yes, Jesus did roam on Earth. But did he perform any miracles, did he rise from the dead, and was he the son of God? Most likely not.

You do acknowledge that many Christians claim to have seen him alive after he died. And that’s something we can agree on.

But like many theories a claim is not enough. Every UFO sighting started as a claim, plenty of men have been jailed over false rape convictions, and QAnon began with the claim of white supremacist David Goldberg that the NYPD had discovered a paedophile ring run by the Democrats in Pizza Comet Pizzeria, Washington DC.

If someone were to discover the ultra resolution, HD photographic evidence of a UFO sighting, the multiple witnesses and or DNA evidence necessary for a rape conviction, or the paedophile ring David Goldberg had gone on about, maybe then I would believe all these sources. But until that day, they remain superstition.

If an archaeologist was to uncover irrefutable evidence of the water Jesus transubstantiated into wine, or any of his other miracles, I may call myself a Christian. And this is just Christianity we’re talking about here. If any evidence surfaced over Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek mythology, or the ancient Aztec religion, then there may be a higher power. Again - until that day, I remain agnostic.

I don't think circular reasoning is required. My faith is evidence-based. See above.

My agnosticism is evidence based too. See above.

You linked a page "Internal consistency of the Bible" , so I'll address that. It is my belief that the overarching message of the Bible does not contradict itself.

Furthermore, skim reading the page, there is no claim that the original texts contradict one another (please correct me if such a claim is on the page). There is a variety of claims of scribal corruption (in some cases to "improve" things, which I don't ascribe to) and manuscript differences. Using textual criticism most of these can be resolved, and the vast majority of the difficult ones are minor and not doctrinally significant.

I tried to use Wikipedia as it is an unbiased source however looking through it, it doesn't seem to mention any specific instances of inconsistency. This is a good one from 'the Secular Web' as it provides many concrete examples. Another good exemplar is just the first one. As we all know, light is emitted as electrons jump orbitals in a packet of energy known as a photon. Hence, the first source of light in God's newly created universe would most likely be the Sun, created by God on the first day:

Genesis 1:4-5

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

However in another passage, God created the Sun on the fourth day:

Genesis 1:16

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Undeniably, this is an inconsistency. There are also some good examples from American Atheists.

Now, I know pointing out the inconsistencies in Genesis is like fighting a blind quadriplegic due to our modern understanding of the universe. Not even the Catholic Church acknowledges Genesis to be the correct 'how to universe was created', favouring instead the purely scientific 'big bang theory'. Instead, Genesis contains 'rich truths' about society, psychology, philosophy, God and human nature. (There are of course the Biblical Fundamentalists but we don't need to go there either)

However, there are still inconsistencies in the New Testament. In Jesus' famous 'Sermon on the Mount'. Matthew 5 claims:

5 1 Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them.

Luke 6:17 claims:

17 He went down with them and stood on a level place. A large crowd of his disciples was there and a great number of people from all over Judea, from Jerusalem, and from the coastal region around Tyre and Sidon,

In Luke 6, Jesus went to a mountain to begin with but moved to a level place to commence his speech. In Matthew 5, Jesus was at the mountain the whole time. Again, a minor inconsistency in word choice, likely caused over years of translation and scribing. But there are still countless examples.

In the gospel of John, Jesus died before the Passover meal but in the Synoptics, Jesus died on the Passover meal itself. In the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of John, the disciples are sent to Galilee to meet the newly risen Christ whereas in Luke they are forced to stay in Jerusalem. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke witnesses Jesus appearing for once more time but disappearing afterword's however in Acts, Jesus appears several times over a period of forty days. Inconsistencies in the Bible aren't isolated incidents but are numerous and appear many times over the course of the Bible.

Again, this is still a very 'Christian-centric' view on religion but as I was born Catholic, I don't know much about the other religions. As you are Christian, I'm assuming the same. But I assume there'd also be inconsistencies in other sacred texts too.

I find this incredibly sad. Throughout all history there have been people from all religions, including Christianity, even today, who twist the message and pick and choose to suit their personal wants. This shows the corruption of humanity but please do not take these people to represent the beliefs of Christianity - just because they act in that name does not mean that they truly believe in it.

Unfortunately in the US Christianity has become very conflated with political position. Christianity does not ascribe to a political party, sect, etc. As a result people use it to justify their political views and get votes. Again these people act in the name of Christianity often without truly believing in it and instead perverting it for their own gain.

And I agree.

 

[yolo tengo]

what is this thread

 

[yolo tengo]

dont like religion regardless where it came from. the only thing people will subjugate themself to and ignore their instincts. i think all religions started to provide guidance or some form of salvation for its followers but it has always became a means for power, divinity etc. I come from a different culture so I'm not really influenced by christian/islamic thought but moreso the folk religion of the south with vedic elements thought but I have many muslim/christian friends from my country due to its prevalence there. had to go outside my state/country to realise that muslims/christians were completely different ppl and learn about the religious politics there which is pre insane but grateful such unity exists there.

im not atheistic but i wouldn't identify myself with religion first, id rather be seen as "Name Surname" who is a "Indian" and happens to follow tradition of "X,Y,Z". my family isn't religious as well esp. my dad who despises religion but our ancestors/parents found strength in surviving british india/casteism through god so we are still devout to X,Y,Z deities.

I think in the end of the day we can all empathise with each other, since we all pray for the same thing despite how we did or where we do it or whose names we invoke or not. We all just want the best for ourselves and others

a fellow indian??? yooooooo

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

a fellow indian??? yooooooo

Legit met some ppl from BOS 2022 cohort in unsw and they were all indian.

 

[carrotsss]

Definitely some good points made so



I haven’t had the time to go over the details of Jesus’ life but I will aim to do that tonight.

From what I know and said in the post above:
Yes, Jesus was a real person. There are many Roman sources which mention the historical Jesus. What does need to be questioned is the separation between historical and mythical Jesus.

Again - yes, Jesus did roam on Earth. But did he perform any miracles, did he rise from the dead, and was he the son of God? Most likely not.

You do acknowledge that many Christians claim to have seen him alive after he died. And that’s something we can agree on.

But like many theories a claim is not enough. Every UFO sighting started as a claim, plenty of men have been jailed over false rape convictions, and QAnon began with the claim of white supremacist David Goldberg that the NYPD had discovered a paedophile ring run by the Democrats in Pizza Comet Pizzeria, Washington DC.

If someone were to discover the ultra resolution, HD photographic evidence of a UFO sighting, the multiple witnesses and or DNA evidence necessary for a rape conviction, or the paedophile ring David Goldberg had gone on about, maybe then I would believe all these sources. But until that day, they remain superstition.

If an archaeologist was to uncover irrefutable evidence of the water Jesus transubstantiated into wine, or any of his other miracles, I may call myself a Christian. And this is just Christianity we’re talking about here. If any evidence surfaced over Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek mythology, or the ancient Aztec religion, then there may be a higher power. Again - until that day, I remain agnostic.



My agnosticism is evidence based too. See above.



I tired to use Wikipedia as it is an unbiased source however looking through it, it doesn't seem to mention any specific instances of inconsistency. This is a good one from 'the Secular Web' as it provides many concrete examples. Another good exemplar is just the first one. As we all know, light is emitted as electrons jump orbitals in a packet of energy known as a photon. Hence, the first source of light in God's newly created universe would most likely be the Sun, created by God on the first day:



However in another passage, God created the Sun on the fourth day:



Undeniably, this is an inconsistency. There are also some good examples from American Atheists.

Now, I know pointing out the inconsistencies in Genesis is like fighting a blind quadriplegic due to our modern understanding of the universe. Not even the Catholic Church acknowledges Genesis to be the correct 'how to universe was created', favouring instead the purely scientific 'big bang theory'. Instead, Genesis contains 'rich truths' about society, psychology, philosophy, God and human nature. (There are of course the Biblical Fundamentalists but we don't need to go there either)

However, there are still inconsistencies in the New Testament. In Jesus' famous 'Sermon on the Mount'. Matthew 5 claims:



Luke 6:17 claims:



In Luke 6, Jesus went to a mountain to begin with but moved to a level place to commence his speech. In Matthew 5, Jesus was at the mountain the whole time. Again, a minor inconsistency in word choice, likely caused over years of translation and scribing. But there are still countless examples.

In the gospel of John, Jesus died before the Passover meal but in the Synoptics, Jesus died on the Passover meal itself. In the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of John, the disciples are sent to Galilee to meet the newly risen Christ whereas in Luke they are forced to stay in Jerusalem. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke witnesses Jesus appearing for once more time but disappearing afterword's however in Acts, Jesus appears several times over a period of forty days. Inconsistencies in the Bible aren't isolated incidents but are numerous and appear many times over the course of the Bible.

Again, this is still a very 'Christian-centric' view on religion but as I was born Catholic, I don't know much about the other religions. As you are Christian, I'm assuming the same. But I assume there'd also be inconsistencies in other sacred texts too.



And I agree.

While I don’t disagree with you, it’s worth keeping in mind that aside from crazy fundamentalists and those sorts, the general Christian consensus is that the stories in the bible were written long after Jesus death, and are not intended to be taken literally. For example, the story of Jesus’ birth isn’t meant to be taken literally. It draws parallels to similar stories made for the birth of other historical figures and kings which to paint their greatness. Same idea with Jesus’ miracles, the general consensus is that many of them didn’t literally happen, but they are ways to show Jesus love and the impact he had on people. Extrapolating this, the condemnation of homosexuality in the bible is also not necessarily strict opposition but actually reflecting the opposition to homosexuality which was prevalent at the time as a form of “evil”, but that’s a completely different argument that I won’t get into.

That said, I don’t believe in god personally, but I think you’re going the wrong way about disputing his existence.

 

[aulinia]

Definitely some good points made so



I haven’t had the time to go over the details of Jesus’ life but I will aim to do that tonight.

From what I know and said in the post above:
Yes, Jesus was a real person. There are many Roman sources which mention the historical Jesus. What does need to be questioned is the separation between historical and mythical Jesus.

Again - yes, Jesus did roam on Earth. But did he perform any miracles, did he rise from the dead, and was he the son of God? Most likely not.

You do acknowledge that many Christians claim to have seen him alive after he died. And that’s something we can agree on.

But like many theories a claim is not enough. Every UFO sighting started as a claim, plenty of men have been jailed over false rape convictions, and QAnon began with the claim of white supremacist David Goldberg that the NYPD had discovered a paedophile ring run by the Democrats in Pizza Comet Pizzeria, Washington DC.

If someone were to discover the ultra resolution, HD photographic evidence of a UFO sighting, the multiple witnesses and or DNA evidence necessary for a rape conviction, or the paedophile ring David Goldberg had gone on about, maybe then I would believe all these sources. But until that day, they remain superstition.

If an archaeologist was to uncover irrefutable evidence of the water Jesus transubstantiated into wine, or any of his other miracles, I may call myself a Christian. And this is just Christianity we’re talking about here. If any evidence surfaced over Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek mythology, or the ancient Aztec religion, then there may be a higher power. Again - until that day, I remain agnostic.



My agnosticism is evidence based too. See above.



I tired to use Wikipedia as it is an unbiased source however looking through it, it doesn't seem to mention any specific instances of inconsistency. This is a good one from 'the Secular Web' as it provides many concrete examples. Another good exemplar is just the first one. As we all know, light is emitted as electrons jump orbitals in a packet of energy known as a photon. Hence, the first source of light in God's newly created universe would most likely be the Sun, created by God on the first day:



However in another passage, God created the Sun on the fourth day:



Undeniably, this is an inconsistency. There are also some good examples from American Atheists.

Now, I know pointing out the inconsistencies in Genesis is like fighting a blind quadriplegic due to our modern understanding of the universe. Not even the Catholic Church acknowledges Genesis to be the correct 'how to universe was created', favouring instead the purely scientific 'big bang theory'. Instead, Genesis contains 'rich truths' about society, psychology, philosophy, God and human nature. (There are of course the Biblical Fundamentalists but we don't need to go there either)

However, there are still inconsistencies in the New Testament. In Jesus' famous 'Sermon on the Mount'. Matthew 5 claims:



Luke 6:17 claims:



In Luke 6, Jesus went to a mountain to begin with but moved to a level place to commence his speech. In Matthew 5, Jesus was at the mountain the whole time. Again, a minor inconsistency in word choice, likely caused over years of translation and scribing. But there are still countless examples.

In the gospel of John, Jesus died before the Passover meal but in the Synoptics, Jesus died on the Passover meal itself. In the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of John, the disciples are sent to Galilee to meet the newly risen Christ whereas in Luke they are forced to stay in Jerusalem. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke witnesses Jesus appearing for once more time but disappearing afterword's however in Acts, Jesus appears several times over a period of forty days. Inconsistencies in the Bible aren't isolated incidents but are numerous and appear many times over the course of the Bible.

Again, this is still a very 'Christian-centric' view on religion but as I was born Catholic, I don't know much about the other religions. As you are Christian, I'm assuming the same. But I assume there'd also be inconsistencies in other sacred texts too.



And I agree.

In the words of Søren Kierkegaard, “God’s existence cannot be proved, nor can the existence of God be refuted.” Just because God’s existence cannot be proved does not necessarily mean the faith one has in God can be diminished. For example, in Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), God is a seperate and transcendent being. God and the very concept of his existence obfuscates human understanding, because man seeks reason and logic, and God’s existence is radical because faith in it doesn’t require reason. In Islamic Sufism & Christianity, the relationship between God and man is mystic, rejecting rationale and embracing the mysterious nature of God. Hence, there is no point in arguing in proof of God’s existence because it is beyond reason, relying on faith as a foundation for God’s existence.

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

Guys no cap if or if not god exists your all getting faqd by NESA this HSC

 

[HazzRat]

While I don’t disagree with you, it’s worth keeping in mind that aside from crazy fundamentalists and those sorts, the general Christian consensus is that the stories in the bible were written long after Jesus death, and are not intended to be taken literally. For example, the story of Jesus’ birth isn’t meant to be taken literally. It draws parallels to similar stories made for the birth of other historical figures and kings which to paint their greatness. Same idea with Jesus’ miracles, the general consensus is that many of them didn’t literally happen, but they are ways to show Jesus love and the impact he had on people. Extrapolating this, the condemnation of homosexuality in the bible is also not necessarily strict opposition but actually reflecting the opposition to homosexuality which was prevalent at the time as a form of “evil”, but that’s a completely different argument that I won’t get into.

That said, I don’t believe in god personally, but I think you’re going the wrong way about disputing his existence.

I haven't heard much about the contemporary Christian understanding of Jesus' miracles but upon a quick search on Reddit, I found that it's a bit 50/50. Some of the Christians believe in Jesus' miracles, some of them don't. Most don't believe in Biblical Fundamentalism though.

Side note:
Idk whether I'm using the term 'Biblical Fundamentalist' right. When I think of a Biblical Fundamentalist, I think of someone who believes the Earth was created in seven days, humanity descended from Adam and Eve, and a global flood enshrouded all of the Earth only for Noah and the animals to survive. A contemporary Christian wouldn't believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis but would believe in Jesus' miracles. An even more contemporary Christian wouldn't believe in Jesus' miracles but would believe Jesus rose from the dead. Believing Jesus rose from the dead is part of the gig, no matter what form of Christian. Tell me if I'm using any of these terms wrong.

This is the Reddit post I found. The main point of the thread is that the OP's religion teacher engaged them with a new way of thinking about Jesus' miracles:

I do not believe that Jesus broke any law of physics. He didn't magically heal a leper, He came close and talked to a leper that no one dared to speak to. He didn't resurrect Lazarus, He listened to his sisters and He consoled them. That's the true miracle. Nonetheless, I still believe that He is God's son, and our saviour.

Upon asking 'what do you guys think?', he got mainly mixed responses. Going from top to bottom, the some of the most popular opinions were as follows:

From [deleted],
Christ rose from the grave. This is crucial, at least for my faith. If we accept that, healing the sick and the blind doesn't require a huge stretch of the imagination.

From u/windflowers,
When I first converted to Christianity, I believed they were allegorical and that the resurrection was spiritual but not physical. After more time in the faith and with Christ, my beliefs gradually changed until I realized that I believe the miracles are both literal and allegorical. So yes, Jesus gave the blind man his sight and brought the dead back to life. He did this for them both physically and spiritually. And I do believe he was bodily resurrected. If we believe God Himself could literally be made man, then aren't the miracles small potatoes compared to that?

We really worry about whether or not this stuff fits with reality. One of my priests once said that when Jesus did these things, he wasn't working outside of reality -- he was giving us a glimpse of what reality truly is.

From [deleted],
As others have noted, the physical resurrection of Christ is absolutely non-negotiable. Paul goes so far as to say that if Christ has not been raised, his preaching was worthless and so is our faith.

That is a bigger miracle than any of the others in the gospels (with the possible exception of the raising of Lazarus.) If you believe that one, you shouldn't have any trouble with believing the others.

If you don't believe that one, you are not a Christian.

That is not to say that a Reddit thread is representative of the entire Christian community but it does indicate that a major sect of the faith take Jesus' miracles literally.

And to those Christians that don't take Jesus' miracles literality. If none of it is accurate, nothing they claim to have happened ever happened, and it's is riddled with inconsistencies. What is the point of it all! I may as well be reading Lord of the Rings if both are just as fictionalised.

Also, homosexuality was not a good example. The condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible is indeed a strict opposition, not a half-hearted principle. Cue the infamous Leviticus 20:13, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." This is from the Old Testament. And as Christians have taken a stance on the 'iffy-ness' of the Old Testament, I always bring up a New Testament quote to back it up. Romans 1:27, "Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." In a utopian society, these anachronistic teachings would remain confined purely to scripture. However thousands of years on, they still possess a worrying effect on the modern day. The Catechism of the Catholic Church considers same-sex sexual activity a mortal sin, the Southern Baptist Church have made it their endeavour to discriminate against those in the LGBT community and today 55% of Evangelical Protestants believe homosexuality should be discouraged (Pew research centre).

For at least some point in any Christian denomination's history they have made it clear their views on homosexuality. That is: if you are born gay, you are born in sin. Unfortunately, sexual orientation is not something one can change.

In the words of Søren Kierkegaard, “God’s existence cannot be proved, nor can the existence of God be refuted.” Just because God’s existence cannot be proved does not necessarily mean the faith one has in God can be diminished. For example, in Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), God is a seperate and transcendent being. God and the very concept of his existence obfuscates human understanding, because man seeks reason and logic, and God’s existence is radical because faith in it doesn’t require reason. In Islamic Sufism & Christianity, the relationship between God and man is mystic, rejecting rationale and embracing the mysterious nature of God. Hence, there is no point in arguing in proof of God’s existence because it is beyond reason, relying on faith as a foundation for God’s existence.

I agree that I can't change anyone's faith. Someone's belief in the divine is as sacrosanct as the texts themselves. All I can do is provide a compelling case that religion is a man made institution, and whether a God exists or not is just your perception. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a God in all this but definitely not any of the current Gods humanity have come up with. And I wouldn't be shocked if there was never a God too. May we be living in a simulation? Possibly. But I do know that accounting for any principle as 'magic' is just as ignorant.

 

[Masaken]

I haven't heard much about the contemporary Christian understanding of Jesus' miracles but upon a quick search on Reddit, I found that it's a bit 50/50. Some of the Christians believe in Jesus' miracles, some of them don't. Most don't believe in Biblical Fundamentalism though.

honestly as a catholic i don't get why people believe in biblical fundamentalism, especially protestants who believe in the infallibaility of the book (for starters the bible is a compilation of books that have been translated and interpreted various times over several times by people and institutions both outside and inside the church with their own agendas for centuries. like even the gospels were written centuries after the date that jesus was meant to have left earth, after years and years of it being transmitted through oral scripture and story - sola scriptura's another thing but it's such a joke in my eyes). for example, i've never understood the firm belief in creationism from genesis, as well as a few other stuff from the bible's first book (obviously). i've always thought of genesis as some sort of allegorical metaphor that dictates on a philosophical level who we are, rather than why we ended up here... i personally believe in jesus' miracles, though i found it understandable about how some of them don't. it's very interesting to explore the history of the bible and its contents from a secular point of view, i've always wanted to delve into it on my own but i don't have the time

 

[HazzRat]

honestly as a catholic i don't get why people believe in biblical fundamentalism, especially protestants who believe in the infallibaility of the book (for starters the bible is a compilation of books that have been translated and interpreted various times over several times by people and institutions both outside and inside the church with their own agendas for centuries. like even the gospels were written centuries after the date that jesus was meant to have left earth, after years and years of it being transmitted through oral scripture and story - sola scriptura's another thing but it's such a joke in my eyes). for example, i've never understood the firm belief in creationism from genesis, as well as a few other stuff from the bible's first book (obviously). i've always thought of genesis as some sort of allegorical metaphor that dictates on a philosophical level who we are, rather than why we ended up here... i personally believe in jesus' miracles, though i found it understandable about how some of them don't. it's very interesting to explore the history of the bible and its contents from a secular point of view, i've always wanted to delve into it on my own but i don't have the time

Same here. I have realised after writing these essay-long posts on religion that I am limited in my understanding of the Abrahamic religions, most notably Christianity. If I'm going to have another atheist-theist debate I'll need to touch up on my knowledge to not look like a complete idiot. The HSC chat thread is much nicer than this one. I have created a monster.

Upon flicking through Reddit one day, I did find out about a Black Metal band who studied Catholicism so vigorously they converted to it. This is them here. Who knows, I might join some of you one day. After my deep-dive into religion, I'll have to see.

 

[carrotsss]

Also, homosexuality was not a good example. The condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible is indeed a strict opposition, not a half-hearted principle. Cue the infamous Leviticus 20:13, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." This is from the Old Testament. And as Christians have taken a stance on the 'iffy-ness' of the Old Testament, I always bring up a New Testament quote to back it up. Romans 1:27, "Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." In a utopian society, these anachronistic teachings would remain confined purely to scripture. However thousands of years on, they still possess a worrying effect on the modern day. The Catechism of the Catholic Church considers same-sex sexual activity a mortal sin, the Southern Baptist Church have made it their endeavour to discriminate against those in the LGBT community and today 55% of Evangelical Protestants believe homosexuality should be discouraged (Pew research centre).

I’m not denying that many christians oppose homosexuality, however just like genesis is strictly mentioned in the bible, and the birth of Jesus is strictly mentioned in the bible, I was pointing out that being mentioned in that way does not necessarily mean that it is actually literal. And I’m not just coming up with this, this is an opinion I got from a leading theologian, so take of that what you will - obviously the bible can be interpreted differently but I would argue if one considers other parts of the bible to not be literal and be based on the contexts of the time, it’s not a stretch to say the same about the views of homosexuality in the bible. I agree that it is very harmful, and I just see it as an example of the cognitive dissonance some Christians possess. Fortunately, this isn’t the case for all christians anymore (e.g the uniting church or even my local catholic priest)

I don’t really thinks it’s worth arguing specifically on the existence of god because as has been mentioned in this thread, trying to bring logic and reason into a discussion about Christianity goes against the idea of Christianity. And as much as Christianity may seem absurd to us, it does genuinely help lots of people, so in my opinion it’s a fruitless debate to have.

 

[HazzRat]

leading theologian

Jordan Peterson?

 

[carrotsss]

Jordan Peterson?

No lmao isn’t he like a psychologist

They aren’t someone you’d probably know about, I know them personally

 

[HazzRat]

No lmao isn’t he like a psychologist

He is but I watched his lectures on the Old Testament a while back and he knows his stuff. I'm not too into my Jordan Peterson nowadays. I had my Peterson phase a few years ago.

 

[Masaken]

I’m not denying that many christians oppose homosexuality, however just like genesis is strictly mentioned in the bible, and the birth of Jesus is strictly mentioned in the bible, I was pointing out that being mentioned in that way does not necessarily mean that it is actually literal. And I’m not just coming up with this, this is an opinion I got from a leading theologian, so take of that what you will - obviously the bible can be interpreted differently but I would argue if one considers other parts of the bible to not be literal and be based on the contexts of the time, it’s not a stretch to say the same about the views of homosexuality in the bible. I agree that it is very harmful, and I just see it as an example of the cognitive dissonance some Christians possess. Fortunately, this isn’t the case for all christians anymore (e.g the uniting church or even my local catholic priest)

100% agree on your points on homosexuality. the bible has been used and exploited by people - most of them christians. there's even a part in the bible where it seemingly condemns homosexuality, but this was translated into english by a group of protestant fundementalists (there's more history behind this but i have unfortunately forgotten)... and the original greek word was more akin to pedophile/molester (i find this all horrific, ironic and also very sad.) let's not forget the people who wrote the books in the bible aren't perfect like jesus was, they had their own misgivings and possibly their own agendas, and if we are to take the bible 100% seriously, then it feels like all those christians who point out the homosexuality verse overlook the most impactful and notable of the bible's teachings about being compassionate and kind, so...

I don’t really thinks it’s worth arguing specifically on the existence of god because as has been mentioned in this thread, trying to bring logic and reason into a discussion about Christianity goes against the idea of Christianity. And as much as Christianity may seem absurd to us, it does genuinely help lots of people, so in my opinion it’s a fruitless debate to have.

i think the belief of god should be at least something that someone feels personally. the 'better' christians (i say this with quotes, i hope yall know what i actually mean) believe in god out of something that's more personal and philosophical to them, not because it gives them this idea of moral superiority like those bible bashing righties that are out there