Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[volition]

The problem with this topic is that there has been no solid evidence to convincingly prove that God does or does not exist.

Which is why I feel perfectly justified in remaining Agnostic.

 

[erin_tonkin]

Which is why I feel perfectly justified in remaining Agnostic.

so as an agnostic what do you think will happen to you when you die. or do you just dont know and dont really care?

 

[volition]

Mark Twain wrote, “I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.”

I don't claim to know what will happen to me when I die, but I'm guessing that I will lose consciousness and just not feel anything.

Do you believe in the idea of a soul? If yes,what do you think the soul does for you?

 

[ur_inner_child]

today, i am not afraid to say that i do not, at all, believe in jesus.

i messaged all my fundamentalist christian friends for the kick of it.

i had my suspicions, very strong ones, but never actually said "jesus did not exist".

and there was much rejoicing.

 

[Lundy]

so as an agnostic what do you think will happen to you when you die. or do you just dont know and dont really care?

I particularly like the Lucretian point of view. Before we were born, we were also 'dead.' Our non-existence before our life caused us no harm. The only harm in dying is our sadness that life has to come to an end, then most probably we'll just return to nothingness as before. Since we would cease to be aware, we wouldn't feel or know anything.

That is unless you want to bring the whole notion of the soul into it.

 

[Wilmo]

I know these are not definative rebuttle of the article in question... but here are some of my thoughts:

The Gnostics were the original Christians, just as they themselves claimed.

Very few people actually support that claim. It is generally accepted by people who actually study the Gnostic gospels that they were written 100-200 years after the biblical gospels (which were written 30-60 years after Jesus death).

The early christians were Jews, and the Jewish train of thought was VERY different to the Gnostics. Gnostics believe and inferior God created the world and hence why it is so crap. Jews believed that the perfect God created the world and sin made him curse his creation but that he will renew his creation and ressurect his people.

Gnostics held a deep hatred for the idea of ressurection (this world is decaying and materialistic so why would they desire to be raised from the dead). What does all that mean? Many of the Jewish christians claimed to have seen Jesus alive, and because of what they believe it would be impossible for them to say he was alive unless they were conviced he had risen from the dead.

On top of this the first christians were persecuted for what they believed. A roman emperor would not be able to persecute a "gnostic christian" because there was little to no difference between what they believed and popular Greek philosphies. It was christians who believed something radically different that they targeted.

Despite what the article claims, Gnostic christianity was a later addition to what the early christians believed. And because it was based on popular human wisdom, the church had to organise itself to prevent people from accepting it as truth. The most dangerous thing for someone to believe is not a flat out lie, but something that masquerades as truth.

Other bits of traditional evidence, such as references to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus, have been shown to be later forgeries.

This isnt quite true either. It isn't the most popular of theories amongst scholars. Most believe that Josephus and Luke used a common text for their explainations of Jesus. Josephus didnt go into much detail as he was only extrapolating the essence of what Jewish Christians believed.

Most people believe it would have been impossible for a Christian who lived at a later time to be able to write such statements affirming who Jesus was in the same voice that Josephus wrote in. Nor could they copy. Each writer would bring their own voice into the writing yet these statements ar consistant with the rest of his work.

My next quirble:

Paul, the earliest Christian source, shows no knowledge of an historical man, only a mystical Christ.

This is like what i said elsewhere... it severley discredits peoples arguments when they make statements which arent true. Did Paul never mention the man Jesus? Let's look at what Paul says:

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

There are a couple of examples where Paul says that Jesus was the Christ which is contrary to what the article claims. When something that has evidence to the contrary is included in an expository argument, it immediately lowers my opinion of what the person is saying.

Just out of curiosity: People, like the ones who wrote this article, use examples from the bible (and I doubt that many people have ever read it) to back up what they say. In this case, they said Paul is the earliest Christian source and he said this which proves our point (although he never said any such thing). Yet if a Christian tries to argue something from the bible, the argument is said to be invalid because the bible is an unreliable source.

Why does it work like that? If Christians cant say "Here is a verse in the bible that says what is right, and here is another bible verse that says the bible is right", Why do people not complain when the argument is reversed (i.e. using the bible to say the bible is wrong)?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Wilmo... he never mentioned anything about jesus's life, other than the fact that he died went to hell, was resurected then went to heaven... The rest of the story of his life is not mentioned at all.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I know these are not definative rebuttle of the article in question... but here are some of my thoughts:



Very few people actually support that claim. It is generally accepted by people who actually study the Gnostic gospels that they were written 100-200 years after the biblical gospels (which were written 30-60 years after Jesus death).

The early christians were Jews, and the Jewish train of thought was VERY different to the Gnostics. Gnostics believe and inferior God created the world and hence why it is so crap. Jews believed that the perfect God created the world and sin made him curse his creation but that he will renew his creation and ressurect his people.

Gnostics held a deep hatred for the idea of ressurection (this world is decaying and materialistic so why would they desire to be raised from the dead). What does all that mean? Many of the Jewish christians claimed to have seen Jesus alive, and because of what they believe it would be impossible for them to say he was alive unless they were conviced he had risen from the dead.

On top of this the first christians were persecuted for what they believed. A roman emperor would not be able to persecute a "gnostic christian" because there was little to no difference between what they believed and popular Greek philosphies. It was christians who believed something radically different that they targeted.

Despite what the article claims, Gnostic christianity was a later addition to what the early christians believed. And because it was based on popular human wisdom, the church had to organise itself to prevent people from accepting it as truth. The most dangerous thing for someone to believe is not a flat out lie, but something that masquerades as truth.



This isnt quite true either. It isn't the most popular of theories amongst scholars. Most believe that Josephus and Luke used a common text for their explainations of Jesus. Josephus didnt go into much detail as he was only extrapolating the essence of what Jewish Christians believed.

Most people believe it would have been impossible for a Christian who lived at a later time to be able to write such statements affirming who Jesus was in the same voice that Josephus wrote in. Nor could they copy. Each writer would bring their own voice into the writing yet these statements ar consistant with the rest of his work.

My next quirble:




This is like what i said elsewhere... it severley discredits peoples arguments when they make statements which arent true. Did Paul never mention the man Jesus? Let's look at what Paul says:





There are a couple of examples where Paul says that Jesus was the Christ which is contrary to what the article claims. When something that has evidence to the contrary is included in an expository argument, it immediately lowers my opinion of what the person is saying.

Just out of curiosity: People, like the ones who wrote this article, use examples from the bible (and I doubt that many people have ever read it) to back up what they say. In this case, they said Paul is the earliest Christian source and he said this which proves our point (although he never said any such thing). Yet if a Christian tries to argue something from the bible, the argument is said to be invalid because the bible is an unreliable source.

Why does it work like that? If Christians cant say "Here is a verse in the bible that says what is right, and here is another bible verse that says the bible is right", Why do people not complain when the argument is reversed (i.e. using the bible to say the bible is wrong)?

good god. i'll applaud you for your effort, but i merely wanted to find a source to back up my claim about pagan roots. i learnt about the pagan roots elsewhere, not that article, which i havent thoroughly read.

just given the nature of this forum, you need to back up what you say, even if you learnt about it somewhere thats not on the net. thats purely what i did.

honestly good work, but i dont support many of the stuff that i wasnt aware about in the article such as Josephus, i dont agree with sourcing him at all. so eh.

merely the paragraph i had supplied the forum.

 

[Wilmo]

Wilmo... he never mentioned anything about jesus's life, other than the fact that he died went to hell, was resurected then went to heaven... The rest of the story of his life is not mentioned at all.

Ah... right oh. Thanks for clearing that up. I can be a bit daft sometimes


My opinion on this is that Paul doesnt write about Jesus' life because it's not heaps necessary for the people he is writing to. The letters he writes are to places where churches have been established (either by himself or others).

It would seem logical that in order to start a church based on Jesus Christ, one would have to explain who Jesus Christ is first. And Paul was no stranger to Jesus. He had witnessed Jesus on the road to Damascus, and that lead him to Jerusalem where he met with Peter (probably the most active of Jesus' disciples).

One would expect he would have got Peter to explain everything to him about Christ's life. On top of that Saul had been persecuting Christians for a long time. He would have been in the presence of Christians as they explained the good news of Jesus before he had them taken away or killed. And if you take the example of the stoning of Stephen, he got to say a lot before he was killed.

Paul was obviously qualified with enough knowledge of Jesus life to explain it in the towns that he visited on his journeys. So I am of the opinion that in establishing a church, the teachings and the life of Christ were explained thoroughly.

And since that message had been passed on orally, then in his letters he was able to focus on explaining the teachings of Jesus even further. Rather than reiterating what they have already been taught and confidently know, he was able to write about more than just the spiritual milk of the gospel.

But as time went on, people who had actually known Jesus started to die and the need for a written version of the gospels came of greater importance. These gospels contain all the information that would have been passed on orally to the churches by Paul and the others.

good god. i'll applaud you for your effort, but i merely wanted to find a source to back up my claim about pagan roots. i learnt about the pagan roots elsewhere, not that article, which i havent thoroughly read.

merely the paragraph i had supplied the forum.

Haha... thanks.

I think it's good to back it up. My problem with the article was that it was claiming things that arent really true at all. And when these untrue things are combined with the point that you try to make, it weakens the argument a bit. I think it's pretty interesting but the article should have taken more care

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea the only problem is... since there's no evidence of anyone knowing most of jesus's life untill 40 years after her death is supposed to happen, I mean... think about it? I think the thing that further complicates it is that there's a bunch of different people whom have stories just like jesus's from around the same time... the church's response to this is that satan created all the other stories to trick people, but jesus is a real one.... despite them all having almost exactly the same tales. It's more than likely that the 'jesus' tale is just a new version of all these other characters...

 

[Wilmo]

Yea the only problem is... since there's no evidence of anyone knowing most of jesus's life untill 40 years after her death is supposed to happen, I mean... think about it?

I understand what you are saying. And it's hard to give a good reason for this. But what I think you will find with early Christianity is that it was largely underground. A few communities of people who practiced Christianity in Jerusalem, and the Jews were pretty hostile to Christians just as they were to Jesus. That's why it stayed quiet for a little while.

On top of that, pretty much all the disciples were illiterate. A few of them were fisherman from the hick town of Galilee, there was an inssurectionist (or zealot) and some other jobs. Matthew, who wrote the gospel of Matthew, was a tax collector and probably the most educated of the lot... but people who knew he was a tax collector would hardly be inclined to believe him.

It was not until Paul was converted a while after that the disciples had someone with the education and ability to put their beliefs into writing, so until that time and for a long time after the gospel spread orally.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that education was not really the standard like it is today (as i'm sure you know). And for this reason there were VERY few christians capable of writing down what Jesus said. They were very capable of explaining it though! And even if they could write it down, then there would still be very few people who could read it as well.

I think the thing that further complicates it is that there's a bunch of different people whom have stories just like jesus's from around the same time... the church's response to this is that satan created all the other stories to trick people, but jesus is a real one.... despite them all having almost exactly the same tales. It's more than likely that the 'jesus' tale is just a new version of all these other characters...

I think i need to go to sleep now. But i was wondering if you could maybe give an example of one (or more) of these people and maybe even what the church has said about them if possible. Or do you mean someone like Ur_Inner_Child's Godman? Sorry for not being able to offer more now, but i'm a bit tired (as always these days!)

 

[SashatheMan]

guys you should check ou this documentary

The Story of God- No God, but God

[COLOR="Blue"]http://files.filefront.com/SOG_doctyp/;4607060;;/fileinfo.html[/COLOR]

Professor Robert Winston presents a definitive history of mankind's quest to understand the nature of God.

The Story of God is an epic journey across continents, cultures and eras exploring religious beliefs from their earliest incarnations, through the development of today's major world faiths and the status of religious faith in a scientific age.

It looks at the divergence between religions that worship a range of deities and those that represent strict monotheism.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are examined in order to understand the ideas they share about God and the issues that divide them



its a good documentary. explaining the differnce between the three major religions of today. Adn how they originated.

Change extension to .rar and extract

 

[HotShot]

This is interesting:

Did God create everything that exists? Does evil exist? Did God create evil?"
A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"
"God created everything?" The professor asked.
"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet and did not respond to the professor's hypothetical definition.

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"

The other students snickered at the young man's question.The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.
The young man's name -- Albert Einstein

 

[GoodSirLancelot]

That is fiction.

 

[HotShot]

That is fiction.

yeah. but the concept is intriguing

 

[davin]

interesting argument.... no evidence of it being einstein though...they just throw his name on stuff
also, i doubt that Fahrenheit would be used by Einstein in that case

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But i was wondering if you could maybe give an example of one (or more) of these people and maybe even what the church has said about them if possible.

I'll get you an example shortly - the church has said satan used these people to trick humanity - but jesus was real.

Did God create everything that exists? Does evil exist? Did God create evil?"
A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"
"God created everything?" The professor asked.
"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet and did not respond to the professor's hypothetical definition.

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"

The other students snickered at the young man's question.The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.
The young man's name -- Albert Einstein

I'll just forward you to http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

 

[HotShot]

I'll get you an example shortly - the church has said satan used these people to trick humanity - but jesus was real.



The problem with the argument is that if evil is the absense of God, then god is not everywhere. The other problem is that it seems to put forward the idea that evil is a 'side effect' of the existance of God and that he has no control over it. Unless God has to abide by certain rules?

absence, in the sense lack of belief, if u dont belive u r evil,

 

[Not-That-Bright]

absence, in the sense lack of belief, if u dont belive u r evil,

It's a nice story.

 

[davin]

absence, in the sense lack of belief, if u dont belive u r evil,

well woot i'm evil