First, dyslexia is a real condition, that many use as an excuse even though they do not have it. I have actually been diagnosed with the learning disability and have to live with it every day. When people critique my spelling ability is the only time I mention it as it really does affect me.
second, I do not consider your comment about spelling to be trolling, I considered your attack on my educational level to be trolling.
All seem to suggest a conscious existence in the afterlife.
I am a Religious Studies minor and it should be known that the earliest Christian writings discuss the practice of asking prayers from deceased martyrs. Their are shrines to them today.
Christianity always held a particular judgment and a general judgment.
I think that this would make an interesting subject for debate among believers. I am currently working toward a masters in Divinity and I find it fascinating that many who spend a great deal of time in the scripture can have legitimate disagreements about some of it's meaning. One thing that bothers me about Biblical education is of course that what point of view one has is often the result of the ideology of the school involved.
Rational, you are a very articulate and well thought out person and I enjoy your vids. Question: if Jesus is the son of god and god in the flesh; knowing that he could remove himself from the cross at any moment and/or that he would rise again in 3 days, how much of a sacrifice is that really?
You sort of ask two questions here, but I will try to address them both, on the first, (if Jesus could have removed himself from the cross what kind of sacrifice is that? ) I think that the answer is fairly simple. It shows that his sacrifice was indeed voluntary. If Jesus was dragged kicking and screaming to the cross and forced to endure the torture it would not have been much of a sacrifice at all.
On the second part (if he knew that he would rise after 3 days how much of a sacrifice is that?) it is a bit more abstract. If you went to jail in the place of someone you loved, even though you knew you would be released eventually that does not mean that you did not sacrifice yourself.
According to scripture everyone will eventually be resurrected, therefore his death was every bit as real and technically as permanent as anyone elses. He was just resurrected on an accelerated timeframe. If you consider that based on the Bible there is no real sense of time while dead, his death and resurrection was no different than yours or mine will be.
"that does not mean that you did not sacrifice yourself."
True, but the point is that it is hardly the ULTIMATE sacrifice. The ultimate sacrifice would be Jesus knowingly and willingly going to hell for eternity for our sins. As it is, the Bible has Jesus knowingly going to heaven for our sins.
If Jesus was a normal man, his sacrifice would in fact be greater, as he sacrificed no more than a normal man could. If he was more than a man, however, his mortal sacrifice would actually be diminished, if anything, because he would be able to sacrifice that much more.
Now that is an interesting idea, however it seams that this might violate the law of non-contradiction, however in a way perhaps that is exactly what God did, in the form of Christ.
Many theologians suggest that Christ was God made flesh in a very real way. Perhaps part of the sacrifice was in fact the way that God allowed his very essence to inhabit a mere human body. After all it would seam clear that God likely would not feel pain like you and I do, but it is also clear that Christ suffered.
It would stand to reason, that if God transferred himself to human form in the body of Christ that this would mean that there was only one God, however if God exists outside of Time as we know it and Christ was temporal as humans all are, even though he became human from our perspective both forms would appear to exist at the same time, thus Christ could pray to God while at the same time being God. In a way, you may have just explained in part the mystery of the Trinity.
If you pay close attention to the story, you'll notice that both Lazarus and the rich man are always in the presence of Abraham (which for the purposes of the parable is representative of God). The term "Hell" in the parable is actually the Greek word "Hades" which is almost always used in place of the Hebrew word "Sheol." Aside from these translation errors, you'll also notice that this is only a parable and not an actual account, therefore it is metaphorical.
There is no traditional or scriptural support that people enter the afterlife the moment they die. If you're going to be consistent with scriptural belief, the afterlife begins after the resurrection when the Christ returns to the world, and so, everyone who dies is, for all we know, lying in the grave, body and soul.
VERY well said gambleor! I agree with you 100% on that. If one honestly looks at the scriptures it is obvious that Judgment does not occur until after the resurrection, and further that everyone is resurrected at the same time.
For the record, I too am not JW, I have a big problem with some of their doctrines. I belong to a non-denominational Church.
There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed. We find Him in the gospels, Josephus' writings and Tacitus' writings among a few others. I'm guessing that you're going to say that the gospels don't count but they do since they were extra biblical sources until the 4th century. It would be special pleading to exclude them just because the followers of Jesus found these records and bound them into their canon because they realized their historicity.
To state that there is no evidence to the existence of Jesus is as intellectually dishonest as to say that there is no evidence to support evolution, or that Alexander the Great ever existed. there is plenty of evidence. That being said evidence is not hard proof. But then we cannot prove anything that is not taking place right now.
If someone wants to reject the evidence as insufficient, I have no problem with that as long as they take the same standard with any other historical figure. Thus you would have to reject the existence of anyone in which the evidence of their existence was limited to ancient writings and contemporaries believing that they existed. Which would eliminate the existence of almost anyone from the ancient world.
I generally do not argue with people that say such dogmatic nonsense as there is no evidence that Jesus existed. Because based on their own statement they are as closed minded as the hard line Christians they like to attack.
So it was an ultimate sacrifice because of his birth right? Where is that equality thing the Bible teaches? Jesus was human after all... He's more important due to a birth right. Also, how would, by the same mechanism, my life save all ants?
No, he doesn't. He says that Jesus is better than us, and he says that we are better than ants. He doesn't say I could sacrifice my life to save all ants.
And why do I have to belive this to be saved? That's not just, that's joining a club...
no, he says that Jesus' sacrifice would've been as valuable as any other sacrifice so long as Jesus didn't have divine nature. The Bible teaches equality amongst humans not humans and divinity.
His sacrifice was the death of his human body, not his actual life. I think as a Christian, you believe that Jesus is alive today. He rose from the dead according to the Bible, so he only sacrificed his human body for 3 days. You or I would sacrifice alot more than that if we died for a friend. Now if Jesus would have ceased to exist for humankind that would be an ultimate sacrifice, but giving up his human body for 3 days doesn't cut it.
Wow. So true, and wouldn't that have made SO much better a story if Jesus had remained dead (in hell even) never to return to earth or heaven forever! That truly would be the ultimate sacrifice. But alas the TRUE mythological story is so much more pathetic.
Not only did Jesus not suffer nearly as much pain and suffering as many other human beings have endured across the ages, but he only needed to endure hell for 3 days, while billions will endure it for eternity! What a fucking pussy.
Actually it's due to shallow reading that one comes to the conclusion that Jesus gave up His life as a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of mankind. A more in depth reading of scriptures reveals that Jesus didn't atone for our sins through His death, but rather through resurrection He conquers death and frees us from our bondage to sin. Death is not the penalty for sin, it is the wage that sin pays the sinner (Romans 6-23).
Purgatory, in my opinion is a concept invented by the Church as a fund rasing technique. this is a major reason that Martin Luthor broke away from the Catholic Church
This is all immaterial. Jesus's sacrifice was made to clean us of original sin. Original sin obviously does not exist because Adam and Eve didn't exist. Unless of course they were our ape-like ancestors. Evolution has clearly shown us that we were not formed in an afternoon of a REALLY busy work week.
Beyond evolution clearly debunking genesis there is also the fact that punishing someones children for their parents sin is obviously immoral.
Not everyone is judged at the same time. There is 'The Judgment' and then 'The Great White Throne Judgment'. There's a 1000 year difference between the judgment of the saved and the judgment of the lost (Revelation 20:4-6).
1. Is it a sacrifice if you are in fact god in the flesh and can't really die? It would be much easier to face danger while saving someone from say a fire, if death didn't truely exist for you, as oppossed to risking TRUE death to save someone from said fire.
2. In paying the ULTIMATE sacrifice, wouldn't it make more sense if jesus went to hell for ALL sinners insdead of just "pretending" to "die" for the sins of those who accept him.
Jesus was as human as you and I. His death was quite real. While you could argue that what is the big deal if he knew that he would rise from the grave, but then if I offered you torture followed by life as normal would you accept? Of course not. His suffering and death was as difficult as it is for anyone else.
On your second point, this harkens back to one of the biggest misunderstandings in the Church Jesus' death WAS for everyone.
Interesting, what about this video would make you think I am not a fundamentalist? Just wondering. However to address your specific question, I currently go to a non-denominational Church. As a matter of principle I do not identify myself with a denomination any longer because I do not believe in taking Church Doctrine over the Bible.
You're views on heaven and hell more closely resemble Jehova's Witness doctrine than they do any other denomination's doctrines, but I had a feeling you weren't a JW. As far as separating church doctrine from Biblical truth is concerned...I've found the task impossible to do without reducing the text to little more than gibberish. No offense.
I would respectfully disagree WS, to me the Bible makes much more sense when you remove the various silly doctrines. As for the JW, I have never attended their church, however like most denominations, they got some things right, and some things wrong. I have herd that their stance on Heaven and Hell are correct, however they also take some very legalistic stances on other issues that I strongly disagree with.
If the Bible makes sense to you then I have a loooot of questions. Like who/what is Jesus? I've heard sou many versions of who he's supposed to be, and I couldn't figure it out just from reading the Bible...which is why I concluded it doesn't make sense...To sum up all my questions, what I'm really looking for is an evangelical statement that is fact based and proves its claims.
First, just so you know, I removed the duplicate entry. Second, you do run into a problem which is demanding proof of something that cannot be proven. I can tell you what I think Jesus was, and who he was, but I could no more prove that than to prove to you that the big bang happened. We might see signs that it did happen, but that is far from proof.
I would not call it a theory in the scientific sense, however what they do have in common is that you cannot go back in time and prove that they did indeed happen. One must accept on faith that it did, in the case of the Bible we have a written testament in the case of the Big Bang we have a theory that fits the known facts, however in a strictly objective manor neither can be called fact.
That makes sense. My problem with faith is that it tends to confuse fact and opinion. A statement cannot be both "correct" and "unproven" at the same time. I understand faith helps a lot of people but, in my experience, this sort of "opinion=fact" confusion has caused more trouble than it's worth.
I would have to take slight issue with that statement, "proven" and "correct" are indeed two different things, however something can be correct and unproven just as something can be incorrect and unproven. For example, we cannot prove the existence of God, however if he does indeed exist, it is "correct" while "unproven."
If it is unproven information, it CANNOT be correct information.
"The statement, that God exists, could be correct."
Words like true, false, correct, and incorrect are reserved for verifiable statements only. Unless words like maybe, could, if, and might, are attached.
"If he does indeed exist, it is correct while unproven."
Notice that in order for your statement to be logical you had to insert "if" into it.
While I see your point, I am not in the habit of living my life as if everything I say is a scientific statement. If I say that my wife is at home right now, and she is than I am correct even if I cannot prove it to you. If I were making a scientific statement sure it would be wrong to make an assumption like that but I was not making a scientific statement, besides even in science we commit this fallacy all the time.
Very few scientists these days are careful about what they say is fact vs. theory. If you turn on pop-science like the Discovery Channel or even in more serious venues such as Scientific American and trade journals, you will commonly see things assumed as fact. For example I read a story in S.A. the other day about how a specific event may have happened 1 billion years after the Big Bang, but the story assumes the BB as fact.
The difference is the Big Bang is called a theory in the textbooks, but God is referred to as a fact. This is dishonest. The most honest statement you could possibly make about the existence of God is, "I believe it's true because it's very likely." Of course that would imply you have reasons (or evidence) to believe in its likelihood. I have yet to see anyone produce a reason for their religious beliefs, while scientists produce reasons for their beliefs all the time.
Interesting, in what textbook currently used in a public school is God referred to as fact? In my physics class last year I saw God referred to as myth, belief, and superstitious, but not "fact." Meanwhile, the text refers to the "fact" of evolution, the "fact" of the big bang, the "fact" of the life cycle of stars, etc. Keep in mind that I am not suggesting that evolution, the BB or stellar evolution are bogus, only that they are treated as fact when they are not, at least not scientifically.
What I meant to say was that, while text books refer to theories as theories, religious books refer to God as fact...which is dishonest. It would be rational to refer to God as a theory (like the big bang, evolution, etc.) rather than a fact, but only if there is enough data to take God from the realm of "I think so." hypotheses to "It's highly likely." theory status. By neglecting to do this, believers become the key reason God appears to be fictional if he really does exist.
On one level I would agree with you, but we fall back to the problem that not every book published on every subject is scientific in nature. If I were writing a book aobut the existence of God, I would not write from the perspective that God's existence is fact. But if I were writing a book about what the meaning of God's commandments are, my target readership is no longer people who may doubt the very existence of God, so I would simply focus on what the deeper meanings of the scriptures are.
The Bible is not a book designed to convince people of the existence of God, it assumes that you already believe. This is one reason that I do not commonly use the Bible in my debates with atheists. Just as I would not hold the book 'Cosmos' by Carl Sagan to the same level of scrutiny as a science textbook like 'the Physical Universe' by McGraw-Hill. Cosmos assumes that you already believe that Sagan is correct and you want to learn about what he thinks.
If the Bible is not intended to convince people of God's existence, then where did the concept of preaching the gospel come from? If the gospel is not intended to convince people of God's existence, then what is the point of making serious claims you don't desire for people to take seriously?
That is a good question in modern context, however you must keep in mind that the meaning of many words have changed over the years. The word "Gospel" simply means "Good News." The concept of preaching the Gospel came from the idea that the mission of Christians (especially in the first century) was to inform the world of the good news that Christ had paid the price for all sin. Again, this assumes that the people you are talking to already believe that God exists.
The commandment was not to teach the text that is what we now call "the Gospels," after all, in the first few decades, the written Gospels did not even exist (at least to the best of our knowledge) if someone rejects the very existence of God, it is a forgone conclusion that they would likely ignore the "Good News," Christians are NOT called to force people to believe, after all they have free will. This is why events like the "Grand Inquisition" were so wrong on multiple levels.
Besides the obvious human rights violations of the GI, there was the problem that the Church in their zeal perverted the concept from informing the world, to forcing (via torture) the world to agree. Obviously, assuming that the Christian message is true, it would be ideal for everyone to be a disciple of Christ, (Which is the Biblical definition of a Christian) however the Good News is for everyone, be you Christian or any other belief.
The purpose of the written Gospels is not to convince you of the existence of God, rather it is for people who want to learn more about Christ, and may want to become Christians to understand his message more clearly, and seek to advance his agenda of total love, total brotherhood, and yes, spreading the "Good News."
"...Christ had paid the price for all sin. Again, this assumes that the people you are talking to already believe that God exists."
There were many Gods in that part of the world at the time, but paying the price for sin only applies to one of them. Wouldn't it be totally pointless to spread this good news to anyone beyond the select few who already believed? Without proving the existence of Jesus' God, the good news is nothing more than a public service announcement attached to a myth. o_0;
As I said, the message was not just for the Christians, but for anyone who was willing to listen (as the Bible says, "let he who has ears, hear.") An interesting idea in the ancient world that we have lost is that while our beliefs of exactly what God is may differ, his proper name, or even how many gods may exist, that on a base level we all worship the same thing, the creator of the universe. Also keep in mind that Christ's sacrifice was not for an exclusive club we call Christians.
Semantics are important here, Christ was very clear in what his sacrifice meant the forgiveness of ALL sin, not just sin of one type, or for one group. Like many things there is an exception, which is also made clear, the only sin that is not included in the umbrella of the cross is what is commonly referred to as "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" which in non-Church lingo simply means to turn your back on God. This is the one thing that kind of screws atheists in the whole "salvation" deal.
Obviously I am no ultimate authority on the subject, however my take on the whole deal is that a member of a non-Christian faith, a true agnostic, or even a skeptic could possibly be just fine in the afterlife, however there is a big difference between being genuine, but incorrect about the nature of God, and actively opposing the very concept as many atheists do.
From everything I've seen, atheists are only opposed to specific definitions of God. So why refer to themselves as atheists? Because all the popular definitions of God make no sense and/or can't be proven true. Your definition of God would include any He,She,They, or It that is responsible for the formation of the universe. Since this would include pantheism(which IS atheism)it would mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be an atheist so long as one recognizes that "everything" came from "something."
You did hit one point on the head, it is irrational and illogical to call oneself an atheist. If you have a problem with a specific definition of God, but you have no problem with some kind of creator-being then you are at the strongest, an agnostic. This is part of the modern attempt to redefine the meaning of an atheist, from anti-theist (or disbelief) to non-theist (or simple lack of faith.)
I totally understand why many atheists want to redefine the word, it is clearly an indefensible position to take the position that there is no God, when you not only have no evidence to support that position, but you literally laugh at those that take a position on faith. The ONLY rational position on the existence of God barring any kind of objective or at least subjective evidence, is agnosticism.
At the same time, even if atheists are successful in redefining the term to simply mean a lack of faith, they cheapen and bastardize their own arguments. For example, if I say that the cup is red, and you respond with no, it is clearly blue that is a fine argument, however if you say no, I have no idea what color it is but it is not red, well then in your argument you already concede defeat by acknowledging ignorance.
I honestly cannot defend atheism, but theism isn't any better. The only rational arguments that can be had about the existence of God are arguments between people who have agreed upon a definition for God. This is why these arguments never get anywhere. There is no fixed definition of the word God. It's like arguing with someone over whether an ingleblort exists or not. Unless both parties know what an ingleblort is there can be no argument.
You are partially correct, there is no single accepted definition of God, however there is a generally accepted definition of some of the qualities of what a God must be. To qualify as God, something must be:
Alive
Conscious
Extremely powerful
Beyond the confines of this universe.
This is all simply due to the fact that every version of God (capitol G) is a living thinking being that created this universe.
While there are also a great number of beliefs both past and present that invoke gods (small G) that may not fit those qualities, that being said, in the theism/atheism argument we are primarily focused on the creator of the universe, not possible sub-creatures to that creator be they gods, angels etc.
On the comment that theism is no better than atheism, I would suppose that would depend on what you mean by "better." While theism is no more rational or logical than atheism to be sure, it also does not claim to be rational or logical. At the very core of theism is the concept of faith, which is to say that we understand that we cannot prove that we are correct, however we believe based on personal experience. Atheists cannot make that statement due to their opposition of faith as a whole.
If faith is belief based on personal experience then this brings us back to what I said previously about "fact=opinion" confusion. Take a "ghost" sighting for example. While it may be a fact that the person saw something, it is their own personal opinion that it was a dead person. Even if it looked like a ghost, you would still have to rule out hallucination, shape shifter, hologram, etc. before you could claim to know what it was. If theism is no more rational than atheism, why defend it?
Why defend it? For one reason, I believe in it. For another I got sick and tired of the irrational and hateful debate from both sides of this and decided to try to be a voice of reason. If one wants to enter a debate one must choose a side.
I know exactly what you mean. Aside from my friend Pedro, you're the only rational theist I've been able to find. You've pretty much answered all my questions. I've chosen the third side of the debate. The unbiased unflinching separation of fact and opinion.
While I don't agree, I can say this was well argued.
I think its kind of odd that theists think that we are mere ants compared to Jesus/God, yet we are so important that the universe was created for our existence. In my mind I can't make the two ideas meet up.
Hey HH, if we carry the ant thing to the next logical step, you might build an ant farm, and take care of your ant farm, in a way you could look at the universe as a cosmic ant farm.
True, within Christian circles I have herd more reference to "perfect" than "ultimate," however I was addressing AZSuperman's question as he worded it.
Thanks AP! It takes time to animate and render out a animation for each video, but I like the dramatic effect. In the future I plan to make bigger and better animations for my videos.
@H2drO34
First, dyslexia is a real condition, that many use as an excuse even though they do not have it. I have actually been diagnosed with the learning disability and have to live with it every day. When people critique my spelling ability is the only time I mention it as it really does affect me.
second, I do not consider your comment about spelling to be trolling, I considered your attack on my educational level to be trolling.
RationalRoundtable 1 year ago
no need to troll, if you want to discuss, I have no objection.
BTW, I happen to be dyslexic, so no, spelling is not, never has been, nor likely ever will be my strong suit.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"if youre a religious studies minor or if youre in college at all. you need to learn to spell. "
Irony!!! Its "you're" friend.
wood9670 2 years ago
RRt: Even if I don't agree with you I appreciate your line of reasoning and the way you bring it forward.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
Luke 16:22; 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23
All seem to suggest a conscious existence in the afterlife.
I am a Religious Studies minor and it should be known that the earliest Christian writings discuss the practice of asking prayers from deceased martyrs. Their are shrines to them today.
Christianity always held a particular judgment and a general judgment.
In any case it really doesn't matter.
wood9670 2 years ago
I think that this would make an interesting subject for debate among believers. I am currently working toward a masters in Divinity and I find it fascinating that many who spend a great deal of time in the scripture can have legitimate disagreements about some of it's meaning. One thing that bothers me about Biblical education is of course that what point of view one has is often the result of the ideology of the school involved.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
Rational, you are a very articulate and well thought out person and I enjoy your vids. Question: if Jesus is the son of god and god in the flesh; knowing that he could remove himself from the cross at any moment and/or that he would rise again in 3 days, how much of a sacrifice is that really?
womanlybassplayer 2 years ago
You sort of ask two questions here, but I will try to address them both, on the first, (if Jesus could have removed himself from the cross what kind of sacrifice is that? ) I think that the answer is fairly simple. It shows that his sacrifice was indeed voluntary. If Jesus was dragged kicking and screaming to the cross and forced to endure the torture it would not have been much of a sacrifice at all.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
On the second part (if he knew that he would rise after 3 days how much of a sacrifice is that?) it is a bit more abstract. If you went to jail in the place of someone you loved, even though you knew you would be released eventually that does not mean that you did not sacrifice yourself.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
According to scripture everyone will eventually be resurrected, therefore his death was every bit as real and technically as permanent as anyone elses. He was just resurrected on an accelerated timeframe. If you consider that based on the Bible there is no real sense of time while dead, his death and resurrection was no different than yours or mine will be.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
"that does not mean that you did not sacrifice yourself."
True, but the point is that it is hardly the ULTIMATE sacrifice. The ultimate sacrifice would be Jesus knowingly and willingly going to hell for eternity for our sins. As it is, the Bible has Jesus knowingly going to heaven for our sins.
Gilmaris 2 years ago
If Christ was a 'normal' man, you would be correct, however once again we come back to the intrinsic value argument that I made in the video.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
If Jesus was a normal man, his sacrifice would in fact be greater, as he sacrificed no more than a normal man could. If he was more than a man, however, his mortal sacrifice would actually be diminished, if anything, because he would be able to sacrifice that much more.
Gilmaris 2 years ago
Interesting, beyond torture and death, how much more could he have sacrificed?
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
For a human, not much else. For God, he could have sacrificed his divinity. How much is mortality next to divinity?
Gilmaris 2 years ago
Now that is an interesting idea, however it seams that this might violate the law of non-contradiction, however in a way perhaps that is exactly what God did, in the form of Christ.
Many theologians suggest that Christ was God made flesh in a very real way. Perhaps part of the sacrifice was in fact the way that God allowed his very essence to inhabit a mere human body. After all it would seam clear that God likely would not feel pain like you and I do, but it is also clear that Christ suffered.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
It would stand to reason, that if God transferred himself to human form in the body of Christ that this would mean that there was only one God, however if God exists outside of Time as we know it and Christ was temporal as humans all are, even though he became human from our perspective both forms would appear to exist at the same time, thus Christ could pray to God while at the same time being God. In a way, you may have just explained in part the mystery of the Trinity.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
Are you a JW? They don't believe in hell either. If that's the case then explain Luke16:22-26
aandrgarrett 2 years ago
If you pay close attention to the story, you'll notice that both Lazarus and the rich man are always in the presence of Abraham (which for the purposes of the parable is representative of God). The term "Hell" in the parable is actually the Greek word "Hades" which is almost always used in place of the Hebrew word "Sheol." Aside from these translation errors, you'll also notice that this is only a parable and not an actual account, therefore it is metaphorical.
gambleor 2 years ago
There is no traditional or scriptural support that people enter the afterlife the moment they die. If you're going to be consistent with scriptural belief, the afterlife begins after the resurrection when the Christ returns to the world, and so, everyone who dies is, for all we know, lying in the grave, body and soul.
gambleor 2 years ago
Oh, and I'm not a JW. I'm Eastern Orthodox.
gambleor 2 years ago
VERY well said gambleor! I agree with you 100% on that. If one honestly looks at the scriptures it is obvious that Judgment does not occur until after the resurrection, and further that everyone is resurrected at the same time.
For the record, I too am not JW, I have a big problem with some of their doctrines. I belong to a non-denominational Church.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
Comment removed
pabobfin 3 years ago
There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed. We find Him in the gospels, Josephus' writings and Tacitus' writings among a few others. I'm guessing that you're going to say that the gospels don't count but they do since they were extra biblical sources until the 4th century. It would be special pleading to exclude them just because the followers of Jesus found these records and bound them into their canon because they realized their historicity.
gambleor 3 years ago
To state that there is no evidence to the existence of Jesus is as intellectually dishonest as to say that there is no evidence to support evolution, or that Alexander the Great ever existed. there is plenty of evidence. That being said evidence is not hard proof. But then we cannot prove anything that is not taking place right now.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
If someone wants to reject the evidence as insufficient, I have no problem with that as long as they take the same standard with any other historical figure. Thus you would have to reject the existence of anyone in which the evidence of their existence was limited to ancient writings and contemporaries believing that they existed. Which would eliminate the existence of almost anyone from the ancient world.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I generally do not argue with people that say such dogmatic nonsense as there is no evidence that Jesus existed. Because based on their own statement they are as closed minded as the hard line Christians they like to attack.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
thank you, what was very well thought out. I'll do likewise from now on. That was a well thought out answer by the way.
gambleor 2 years ago
So it was an ultimate sacrifice because of his birth right? Where is that equality thing the Bible teaches? Jesus was human after all... He's more important due to a birth right. Also, how would, by the same mechanism, my life save all ants?
Allallt 3 years ago
he addressed that in the video.
gambleor 3 years ago
No, he doesn't. He says that Jesus is better than us, and he says that we are better than ants. He doesn't say I could sacrifice my life to save all ants.
And why do I have to belive this to be saved? That's not just, that's joining a club...
Allallt 3 years ago
no, he says that Jesus' sacrifice would've been as valuable as any other sacrifice so long as Jesus didn't have divine nature. The Bible teaches equality amongst humans not humans and divinity.
gambleor 3 years ago
you spelled response wrongly
kotalian2 3 years ago
Being dyslexic, that happens to me from time to time.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
His sacrifice was the death of his human body, not his actual life. I think as a Christian, you believe that Jesus is alive today. He rose from the dead according to the Bible, so he only sacrificed his human body for 3 days. You or I would sacrifice alot more than that if we died for a friend. Now if Jesus would have ceased to exist for humankind that would be an ultimate sacrifice, but giving up his human body for 3 days doesn't cut it.
reilender1 3 years ago
Wow. So true, and wouldn't that have made SO much better a story if Jesus had remained dead (in hell even) never to return to earth or heaven forever! That truly would be the ultimate sacrifice. But alas the TRUE mythological story is so much more pathetic.
Not only did Jesus not suffer nearly as much pain and suffering as many other human beings have endured across the ages, but he only needed to endure hell for 3 days, while billions will endure it for eternity! What a fucking pussy.
EmeraldView 3 years ago
Actually it's due to shallow reading that one comes to the conclusion that Jesus gave up His life as a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of mankind. A more in depth reading of scriptures reveals that Jesus didn't atone for our sins through His death, but rather through resurrection He conquers death and frees us from our bondage to sin. Death is not the penalty for sin, it is the wage that sin pays the sinner (Romans 6-23).
gambleor 3 years ago
You go to purgatory 1st, not heaven or hell.
charlesfloyb 3 years ago
Purgatory, in my opinion is a concept invented by the Church as a fund rasing technique. this is a major reason that Martin Luthor broke away from the Catholic Church
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
This is all immaterial. Jesus's sacrifice was made to clean us of original sin. Original sin obviously does not exist because Adam and Eve didn't exist. Unless of course they were our ape-like ancestors. Evolution has clearly shown us that we were not formed in an afternoon of a REALLY busy work week.
Beyond evolution clearly debunking genesis there is also the fact that punishing someones children for their parents sin is obviously immoral.
cidvisions 3 years ago 2
Not everyone is judged at the same time. There is 'The Judgment' and then 'The Great White Throne Judgment'. There's a 1000 year difference between the judgment of the saved and the judgment of the lost (Revelation 20:4-6).
BOX5500 3 years ago
Even if true (or untrue for that matter), that does not change the core of my argument. I am not sure what your point is.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
My point is the need for CORRECT teaching!
BOX5500 3 years ago
this forum is not a Bible study my friend.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I know. I know. It's just your opinion. That's unfortunate.
BOX5500 3 years ago
Two points on this that I have trouble with;
1. Is it a sacrifice if you are in fact god in the flesh and can't really die? It would be much easier to face danger while saving someone from say a fire, if death didn't truely exist for you, as oppossed to risking TRUE death to save someone from said fire.
2. In paying the ULTIMATE sacrifice, wouldn't it make more sense if jesus went to hell for ALL sinners insdead of just "pretending" to "die" for the sins of those who accept him.
raistlin072 3 years ago
Jesus was as human as you and I. His death was quite real. While you could argue that what is the big deal if he knew that he would rise from the grave, but then if I offered you torture followed by life as normal would you accept? Of course not. His suffering and death was as difficult as it is for anyone else.
On your second point, this harkens back to one of the biggest misunderstandings in the Church Jesus' death WAS for everyone.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
YOU ARE THE MAN!!!
A GREAT RESPONSE
theTruthIs2dangerous 3 years ago
Thank you, but I am only A man, not THE man! :)
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Am I the only one who thinks he sounds like Kermit the Frog?
MattM233 3 years ago
I sound like Kermit too. We frogs gotta stick together. :P
echthroi9 3 years ago
haha :D
MattM233 3 years ago
I have been called many things, but never old greenskin...
:)
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
lol greenskin XD
MattM233 3 years ago
from this video I can tell you're not a fundamentalist...what denomination, if any, would you say your beliefs most closely resemble?
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
Interesting, what about this video would make you think I am not a fundamentalist? Just wondering. However to address your specific question, I currently go to a non-denominational Church. As a matter of principle I do not identify myself with a denomination any longer because I do not believe in taking Church Doctrine over the Bible.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
You're views on heaven and hell more closely resemble Jehova's Witness doctrine than they do any other denomination's doctrines, but I had a feeling you weren't a JW. As far as separating church doctrine from Biblical truth is concerned...I've found the task impossible to do without reducing the text to little more than gibberish. No offense.
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
I would respectfully disagree WS, to me the Bible makes much more sense when you remove the various silly doctrines. As for the JW, I have never attended their church, however like most denominations, they got some things right, and some things wrong. I have herd that their stance on Heaven and Hell are correct, however they also take some very legalistic stances on other issues that I strongly disagree with.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
If the Bible makes sense to you then I have a loooot of questions. Like who/what is Jesus? I've heard sou many versions of who he's supposed to be, and I couldn't figure it out just from reading the Bible...which is why I concluded it doesn't make sense...To sum up all my questions, what I'm really looking for is an evangelical statement that is fact based and proves its claims.
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
First, just so you know, I removed the duplicate entry. Second, you do run into a problem which is demanding proof of something that cannot be proven. I can tell you what I think Jesus was, and who he was, but I could no more prove that than to prove to you that the big bang happened. We might see signs that it did happen, but that is far from proof.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Are you saying then that Christianity, like the Big Bang, is a theory and neither one can be proven?
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
I would not call it a theory in the scientific sense, however what they do have in common is that you cannot go back in time and prove that they did indeed happen. One must accept on faith that it did, in the case of the Bible we have a written testament in the case of the Big Bang we have a theory that fits the known facts, however in a strictly objective manor neither can be called fact.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
That makes sense. My problem with faith is that it tends to confuse fact and opinion. A statement cannot be both "correct" and "unproven" at the same time. I understand faith helps a lot of people but, in my experience, this sort of "opinion=fact" confusion has caused more trouble than it's worth.
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
I would have to take slight issue with that statement, "proven" and "correct" are indeed two different things, however something can be correct and unproven just as something can be incorrect and unproven. For example, we cannot prove the existence of God, however if he does indeed exist, it is "correct" while "unproven."
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I'll give a specific example:
"The statement, that God exists, is correct."
If it is unproven information, it CANNOT be correct information.
"The statement, that God exists, could be correct."
Words like true, false, correct, and incorrect are reserved for verifiable statements only. Unless words like maybe, could, if, and might, are attached.
"If he does indeed exist, it is correct while unproven."
Notice that in order for your statement to be logical you had to insert "if" into it.
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
While I see your point, I am not in the habit of living my life as if everything I say is a scientific statement. If I say that my wife is at home right now, and she is than I am correct even if I cannot prove it to you. If I were making a scientific statement sure it would be wrong to make an assumption like that but I was not making a scientific statement, besides even in science we commit this fallacy all the time.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Very few scientists these days are careful about what they say is fact vs. theory. If you turn on pop-science like the Discovery Channel or even in more serious venues such as Scientific American and trade journals, you will commonly see things assumed as fact. For example I read a story in S.A. the other day about how a specific event may have happened 1 billion years after the Big Bang, but the story assumes the BB as fact.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
The difference is the Big Bang is called a theory in the textbooks, but God is referred to as a fact. This is dishonest. The most honest statement you could possibly make about the existence of God is, "I believe it's true because it's very likely." Of course that would imply you have reasons (or evidence) to believe in its likelihood. I have yet to see anyone produce a reason for their religious beliefs, while scientists produce reasons for their beliefs all the time.
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
Interesting, in what textbook currently used in a public school is God referred to as fact? In my physics class last year I saw God referred to as myth, belief, and superstitious, but not "fact." Meanwhile, the text refers to the "fact" of evolution, the "fact" of the big bang, the "fact" of the life cycle of stars, etc. Keep in mind that I am not suggesting that evolution, the BB or stellar evolution are bogus, only that they are treated as fact when they are not, at least not scientifically.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
What I meant to say was that, while text books refer to theories as theories, religious books refer to God as fact...which is dishonest. It would be rational to refer to God as a theory (like the big bang, evolution, etc.) rather than a fact, but only if there is enough data to take God from the realm of "I think so." hypotheses to "It's highly likely." theory status. By neglecting to do this, believers become the key reason God appears to be fictional if he really does exist.
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
On one level I would agree with you, but we fall back to the problem that not every book published on every subject is scientific in nature. If I were writing a book aobut the existence of God, I would not write from the perspective that God's existence is fact. But if I were writing a book about what the meaning of God's commandments are, my target readership is no longer people who may doubt the very existence of God, so I would simply focus on what the deeper meanings of the scriptures are.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
The Bible is not a book designed to convince people of the existence of God, it assumes that you already believe. This is one reason that I do not commonly use the Bible in my debates with atheists. Just as I would not hold the book 'Cosmos' by Carl Sagan to the same level of scrutiny as a science textbook like 'the Physical Universe' by McGraw-Hill. Cosmos assumes that you already believe that Sagan is correct and you want to learn about what he thinks.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
If the Bible is not intended to convince people of God's existence, then where did the concept of preaching the gospel come from? If the gospel is not intended to convince people of God's existence, then what is the point of making serious claims you don't desire for people to take seriously?
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
That is a good question in modern context, however you must keep in mind that the meaning of many words have changed over the years. The word "Gospel" simply means "Good News." The concept of preaching the Gospel came from the idea that the mission of Christians (especially in the first century) was to inform the world of the good news that Christ had paid the price for all sin. Again, this assumes that the people you are talking to already believe that God exists.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
The commandment was not to teach the text that is what we now call "the Gospels," after all, in the first few decades, the written Gospels did not even exist (at least to the best of our knowledge) if someone rejects the very existence of God, it is a forgone conclusion that they would likely ignore the "Good News," Christians are NOT called to force people to believe, after all they have free will. This is why events like the "Grand Inquisition" were so wrong on multiple levels.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Besides the obvious human rights violations of the GI, there was the problem that the Church in their zeal perverted the concept from informing the world, to forcing (via torture) the world to agree. Obviously, assuming that the Christian message is true, it would be ideal for everyone to be a disciple of Christ, (Which is the Biblical definition of a Christian) however the Good News is for everyone, be you Christian or any other belief.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
The purpose of the written Gospels is not to convince you of the existence of God, rather it is for people who want to learn more about Christ, and may want to become Christians to understand his message more clearly, and seek to advance his agenda of total love, total brotherhood, and yes, spreading the "Good News."
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
"...Christ had paid the price for all sin. Again, this assumes that the people you are talking to already believe that God exists."
There were many Gods in that part of the world at the time, but paying the price for sin only applies to one of them. Wouldn't it be totally pointless to spread this good news to anyone beyond the select few who already believed? Without proving the existence of Jesus' God, the good news is nothing more than a public service announcement attached to a myth. o_0;
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
As I said, the message was not just for the Christians, but for anyone who was willing to listen (as the Bible says, "let he who has ears, hear.") An interesting idea in the ancient world that we have lost is that while our beliefs of exactly what God is may differ, his proper name, or even how many gods may exist, that on a base level we all worship the same thing, the creator of the universe. Also keep in mind that Christ's sacrifice was not for an exclusive club we call Christians.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Semantics are important here, Christ was very clear in what his sacrifice meant the forgiveness of ALL sin, not just sin of one type, or for one group. Like many things there is an exception, which is also made clear, the only sin that is not included in the umbrella of the cross is what is commonly referred to as "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" which in non-Church lingo simply means to turn your back on God. This is the one thing that kind of screws atheists in the whole "salvation" deal.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Obviously I am no ultimate authority on the subject, however my take on the whole deal is that a member of a non-Christian faith, a true agnostic, or even a skeptic could possibly be just fine in the afterlife, however there is a big difference between being genuine, but incorrect about the nature of God, and actively opposing the very concept as many atheists do.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
From everything I've seen, atheists are only opposed to specific definitions of God. So why refer to themselves as atheists? Because all the popular definitions of God make no sense and/or can't be proven true. Your definition of God would include any He,She,They, or It that is responsible for the formation of the universe. Since this would include pantheism(which IS atheism)it would mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be an atheist so long as one recognizes that "everything" came from "something."
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
You did hit one point on the head, it is irrational and illogical to call oneself an atheist. If you have a problem with a specific definition of God, but you have no problem with some kind of creator-being then you are at the strongest, an agnostic. This is part of the modern attempt to redefine the meaning of an atheist, from anti-theist (or disbelief) to non-theist (or simple lack of faith.)
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I totally understand why many atheists want to redefine the word, it is clearly an indefensible position to take the position that there is no God, when you not only have no evidence to support that position, but you literally laugh at those that take a position on faith. The ONLY rational position on the existence of God barring any kind of objective or at least subjective evidence, is agnosticism.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
At the same time, even if atheists are successful in redefining the term to simply mean a lack of faith, they cheapen and bastardize their own arguments. For example, if I say that the cup is red, and you respond with no, it is clearly blue that is a fine argument, however if you say no, I have no idea what color it is but it is not red, well then in your argument you already concede defeat by acknowledging ignorance.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I honestly cannot defend atheism, but theism isn't any better. The only rational arguments that can be had about the existence of God are arguments between people who have agreed upon a definition for God. This is why these arguments never get anywhere. There is no fixed definition of the word God. It's like arguing with someone over whether an ingleblort exists or not. Unless both parties know what an ingleblort is there can be no argument.
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
You are partially correct, there is no single accepted definition of God, however there is a generally accepted definition of some of the qualities of what a God must be. To qualify as God, something must be:
Alive
Conscious
Extremely powerful
Beyond the confines of this universe.
This is all simply due to the fact that every version of God (capitol G) is a living thinking being that created this universe.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
While there are also a great number of beliefs both past and present that invoke gods (small G) that may not fit those qualities, that being said, in the theism/atheism argument we are primarily focused on the creator of the universe, not possible sub-creatures to that creator be they gods, angels etc.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
On the comment that theism is no better than atheism, I would suppose that would depend on what you mean by "better." While theism is no more rational or logical than atheism to be sure, it also does not claim to be rational or logical. At the very core of theism is the concept of faith, which is to say that we understand that we cannot prove that we are correct, however we believe based on personal experience. Atheists cannot make that statement due to their opposition of faith as a whole.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
If faith is belief based on personal experience then this brings us back to what I said previously about "fact=opinion" confusion. Take a "ghost" sighting for example. While it may be a fact that the person saw something, it is their own personal opinion that it was a dead person. Even if it looked like a ghost, you would still have to rule out hallucination, shape shifter, hologram, etc. before you could claim to know what it was. If theism is no more rational than atheism, why defend it?
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
Why defend it? For one reason, I believe in it. For another I got sick and tired of the irrational and hateful debate from both sides of this and decided to try to be a voice of reason. If one wants to enter a debate one must choose a side.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I know exactly what you mean. Aside from my friend Pedro, you're the only rational theist I've been able to find. You've pretty much answered all my questions. I've chosen the third side of the debate. The unbiased unflinching separation of fact and opinion.
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
well then, props to Pedro!
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
He's got a ministry on Myspace if you're interested.
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
PM me the details and I will look him up.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
While I don't agree, I can say this was well argued.
I think its kind of odd that theists think that we are mere ants compared to Jesus/God, yet we are so important that the universe was created for our existence. In my mind I can't make the two ideas meet up.
hallelujaallahuakbar 3 years ago 2
Hey HH, if we carry the ant thing to the next logical step, you might build an ant farm, and take care of your ant farm, in a way you could look at the universe as a cosmic ant farm.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Sorta begs the question of whether God is dropping the bread crumbs, or holding the magnifying glass. :P
echthroi9 3 years ago
LOL
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
It isn't so much that the sacrifice of Jesus was the "ultimate" as it was a "perfect" sacrifice.
FlowCell 3 years ago
True, within Christian circles I have herd more reference to "perfect" than "ultimate," however I was addressing AZSuperman's question as he worded it.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Dig the new intro.
Atheistprimate 3 years ago
Thanks AP! It takes time to animate and render out a animation for each video, but I like the dramatic effect. In the future I plan to make bigger and better animations for my videos.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago