quote:
IF that were true; then how do you explain the rapid growth and endurance of the Christian faith? Surely if there were no evidence, and no reason behind it- it would have faded away by now?

There are reasons, but it’s not based on any evidence of correct theology.

Firstly, Roman emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380CE which made Nicene Christianity the official religion of the empire. They tolerated the pagan religions for some time, but most people quickly switched to Christianity because there were many economic advantages such as being able to serve in the military and to secure favorable contracts and such. (Similar to so many people in Germany joining the Nazi party even though they were personally against genocide of Jews, or how in order to be a doctor, an engineer, a lawyer, or a plumber in Iraq under Saddam you had to be a member of the Baath party).

Secondly, the Christians conquered and colonized most of Africa and the Americas and forcibly converted natives to Christianity, and those who refused were murdered.

You wrote about endurance of the Christian faith, but in the countries that are scientifically educated with high intelligence with moderate birth rates, Christianity is actually in rapid decline.
Pew Research: rapid decline of Christianity

quote:
There is no neutrality in belief. In order to lack belief in something, you must lack any knowledge of it whatsoever.

I’m not sure if you meant to word this the way you did. I’m sure you lack belief that Santa is real, but you are aware of the tales of Santa. You are also I’m sure aware of the claims of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but you lack a belief in those claims.

quote:
So, when you assert that there is no God- are you not positive?

What I am absolutely positive of is that the gods described in the Bible are fabricated by the delusions of men. Maybe it is possible that a god exists, or perhaps many, but I know that the Bible can’t possibly accurately describe them. Perhaps it is better for me to merely state “I do not believe in your god or gods” rather than stating “there is no god”. As I’ve been clear before, no one can prove a negative.

quote:
I can see how an ancient near eastern goat herder with a limited knowledge of the universe could use metaphor to describe something he couldn’t possibly understand.

Hey, they herded sheep too, not just goats. In many places in the Bible, the firmament is literally stated to be firm, and with the substance similar too and as hard as and reflective as a cast iron mirror, or like glass. During Noah’s flood story, the windows of the firmament open to allow the rain to fall. I personally don’t believe it was written metaphorically. If it was though, how then do you decide what is literal and what is metaphor? If you state that it was written by goat herders who just didn’t have an idea because their science hadn’t progressed yet, then how can anyone claim it was inspired by God? Because it’s scientifically wrong.

quote:
My faith is not based solely on biblical inerrancy. It is based primarily upon the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How can you even be sure that really happened? The gospels can’t agree on whether Jesus died the day after the Passover meal was eaten or was it the day of preparation of the Passover meal. They can’t agree on whether he was born in a house or in a barn because no house was available. They can’t agree on whether baby Jesus went to Egypt before going to Nazareth, or if he went straight from Bethlehem to Nazareth. They can’t agree whether Jesus was born under king Herod or if he was born under the Roman governor Quirinius. Was Jesus’ last words “Eli Eli Lama Sabachtani” or was it “Father into your hands I commit my spirit” or was it “it is finished”? Did both criminals crucified with Jesus talk trash about him, or was one nice to him? Was the temple veil ripped before Jesus died, or after Jesus died? Was there one man, one angel, two men, or two angels in Jesus’ tomb when Jesus’ followers went to it? Did the two women run and tell everyone, or did they run away in fear and tell no one about the resurrection? Did Jesus’ disciples stay in Jersusalem and never leave while Jesus appeared to them, or did the disciples travel to Galilee where Jesus appeared there? It depends which gospel you read and/or believe to be the “Truth”. If they can’t agree on any of those details (and much more) and many of those details are contradictions that cannot be reconciled, then how can we believe any of it?

I guess you can say - well they all say Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day and we must believe in him for salvation. True, but you could throw all those gospel accounts away and just read Paul’s epistles and you’d get that same message.

quote:
It is bolstered by the plethora of sound, logical arguments for the existence of God

I haven’t heard such a thing. Can you share one with us, or post a link?

quote:
ever increasing archaeological and historical evidence of the historicity of the biblical account

I think you are conflating the evidence and being vague with what you call the “biblical account”. Archeological and historical evidence confirms things such as the fact that the Israelites were sacrificing their firstborn children to Yahweh, and that King Mesha (of Moab) really did defeat Israel in battle, and the Assyrians really did whip Israel’s butt and the Babylonians really did whip Judah’s butt. On the other hand, that same archeological and historical (and scientific) evidence has proven that there were no Adam and Even, that creation a la Genesis 1 nor Genesis 2-3 didn’t happen, that Noah’s flood didn’t happen, that the Exodus from Egypt didn’t happen, and that the ancient Israelites were just simply Canaanites who were already in the promised land.

quote:
If I am wrong (which I do not believe I am), I am prepared to accept the consequences. Are you?

I don’t know if it is possible to be prepared. I don’t have a good answer for you. I’m confident though that at the end of life, we simply cease to exist. Just like in Genesis and Ecclesiastes actually, which state we are from dust and to dust we shall return, and we are no different from any of the animals in that when we die, our thoughts and passions die with us. You seem to be a big fan of Pascal, and you seem to believe you are wagering your beliefs to be the correct beliefs… out of the 30,000 or so different religions, you still have very low odds of being correct. If you assume there is exactly one correct religion, then your wager would leave you with statistical odds no different than mine.

Let me leave you with this excerpt from Ecclesiastes:

quote:
19For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. 20All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. 21Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

749 posts

Posted on 2/6/24 at 9:36 pm to Squirrelmeister

quote:
Firstly, Roman emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380CE which made Nicene Christianity the official religion of the empire. They tolerated the pagan religions for some time, but most people quickly switched to Christianity because there were many economic advantages such as being able to serve in the military and to secure favorable contracts and such.

So forced, false converts? If anything, I would think this would only create resentment towards Christianity (surely it did)- especially if it were completely false and made up.

quote:
Secondly, the Christians conquered and colonized most of Africa and the Americas and forcibly converted natives to Christianity, and those who refused were murdered.

Lots of people have done terrible things in the name of Christianity. But that doesn’t mean Christianity is false. When it comes to, say, gun violence- do you blame the gun or the criminal?

quote:
You wrote about endurance of the Christian faith, but in the countries that are scientifically educated with high intelligence with moderate birth rates, Christianity is actually in rapid decline. Pew Pew Research

Well, there is a lot to unpack in this study. It probably deserves its own thread. Actually, most of the content of your post probably deserves its own thread, but let’s see how much we can cover here. Before we delve into the numbers of the “nones”, let’s see who they are and what they believe.
Pew Pew: Religious “nones”
•Most “nones” believe in God or another higher power. But very few go to religious services regularly.

•Most say religion does some harm, but many also think it does some good. They are not uniformly anti-religious.

•Most “nones” reject the idea that science can explain everything. But they express more positive views of science than religiously affiliated Americans do.(This is a vague statement about a broad category)

“Nones” tend to vote less often, do less volunteer work in their communities and follow public affairs at lower rates than religiously affiliated people do.

28% of U.S. adults are now religiously
unaffiliated (2023). In our latest data, 17% of “nones” identify as atheist, 20% say they are agnostic and 63% choose “nothing in particular.” 17% of 28% is less than 5% of the population- not exactly the 5 alarm fire it appears to be on the surface.

Now, let’s breakdown the numbers from your Pew Pew study.

Today, Christianity still is the stickier affiliation for older Americans. But among younger adults, the unaffiliated identity has become the stickier one. Among people who are 40 and older, 80% of those raised as Christians are still Christian today, compared with just 56% of those who were raised unaffiliated (in childhood) and still do not identify with a religion today (in adulthood). However, among people in their 30s, only 66% of those raised Christian are still Christian today, compared with 73% of those raised unaffiliated who still are today.
Young and dumb, and full of… terrible misconceptions about Christianity.

U.S. adults who have moved away from Christianity are younger, on average, than those who have remained Christian after a Christian upbringing

Americans who have moved away from Christianity are more likely to be men (commitment issues?)

People who have become unaffiliated after a Christian upbringing are a little more likely to have graduated college than those who remain Christian, with 35% and 31%, respectively, holding college degrees. This reflects a broader pattern: In the U.S., people with higher levels of educational attainment tend to be less religious by some traditional measures, such as how often they pray or attend religious services.
A lot to be said about this. First thoughts are indoctrination and peer pressure, followed by the rich young ruler syndrome. I honestly thought the numbers would be higher in favor of educated “nones.”

Seven-in-ten adults who were raised Christian but are now unaffiliated are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents, compared with 43% of those who remained Christian and 51% of U.S. adults overall. Some scholars argue that disaffiliation from Christianity is driven by an association between Christianity and political conservatism that has intensified in recent decades.
Oof. Does TDS know no bounds?

People who have left Christianity are underrepresented in the South
Surveys often find that U.S. adults tend to be more religious, on a number of measures, in the South

Taking all of this into consideration, it doesn’t really seem like Christianity has suffered any significant loss. Rather, it appears that many of the fake Christians, who were only pretending to be Christians because it was socially acceptable, and required no real commitment or sacrifice, have been emboldened to show their true colors.

quote:
I’m not sure if you meant to word this the way you did. I’m sure you lack belief that Santa is real, but you are aware of the tales of Santa. You are also I’m sure aware of the claims of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but you lack a belief in those claims.

I did. I don’t lack belief in Santa or Muhammad. I positively believe that Santa doesn’t exist- the people who told me he was real- later told me they made it up. We can go into the reasons why I believe Muhammad was a fraud- but not tonight (I have to pack for a trip)

I will try to respond to the rest of your post during my trip- but it may have to wait. I don’t want to overlook anything.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

749 posts

Posted on 2/10/24 at 3:56 pm to Squirrelmeister

quote:
What I am absolutely positive of is that the gods described in the Bible are fabricated by the delusions of men.

“Claims without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Did I do it right?

I know you think you and your liberal scholars have some “evidence” that leads you to believe that, but for you to claim absolute certainty in one breath, and deny the ability to prove your own claim in the next, is logically inconsistent at best. And, any evidence that you would rest your case on, at best, would be subject to interpretation and endless debate.

quote:
During Noah’s flood story, the windows of the firmament open to allow the rain to fall. I personally don’t believe it was written metaphorically.

Genesis 7:11 (NASB95): 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
That’s a metaphor, Jack.

The Bible is full of them.

quote:
If it was though, how then do you decide what is literal and what is metaphor?

Similes and metaphors are easily recognizable- ancient near eastern idioms and hyperbole can be tricky.

quote:
If you state that it was written by goat herders who just didn’t have an idea because their science hadn’t progressed yet, then how can anyone claim it was inspired by God? Because it’s scientifically wrong

Well, it’s not a scientific textbook. Sorry. As far as God using the people He did, at the time He did; to communicate deeply profound theological truths to the rest of humanity, throughout the future of mankind- well, I think God’s inspiration is the only logical conclusion.

quote:
My faith is not based solely on biblical inerrancy. It is based primarily upon the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

quote:
How can you even be sure that really happened? The gospels can’t agree on

… fill in the blank with meaningless details. First of all, for someone who places such high regard for scholarly consensus- I would think that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ would be a given. It most certainly is for the vast majority of scholars. Moving on. Go back and look at all of your supposed contradictions. Do any of them affect the necessary information needed for salvation? The answer is no. Although most (if not all) of them can be reconciled through careful (and charitable) exposition, IMHO I believe they exist for at least one reason: “so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven.”
God is not going to force you to believe in Him. That’s just my opinion, but I think it’s logically and biblically sound.

quote:
If they can’t agree on any of those details (and much more) and many of those details are contradictions that cannot be reconciled, then how can we believe any of it?

If anything, these “contradictions” only add legitimacy to the claim of being an authentic eyewitness report. Imagine if someone committed a crime against someone you know and love. Let’s say that there were multiple eyewitnesses- including you. Inevitably and invariably, there absolutely will be discrepancies regarding the unimportant details of the event. Conversely, there will be agreement on the important details of the event. So, by your own logic, you would let the criminal go free- because the witness statements were not in 100% agreement on every single detail? I don’t think so.

Now going back to the Gospels, if all the witnesses parroted the exact same narrative, with no discrepancies whatsoever- you would accuse them of conspiring to fabricate the entire story. Sooner or later you have to recognize your own bias. As I have said before, and will continue to maintain- when it comes to the Bible, you will find that which you are looking for. If you’re looking for reasons to believe, you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to doubt, you will find them as well.

quote:
I guess you can say - well they all say Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day and we must believe in him for salvation.

Amen brother!

quote:
True, but you could throw all those gospel accounts away and just read Paul’s epistles and you’d get that same message.

You’re on a roll!

You’re right about them being the same message. But, without them, I imagine the skeptics would then say that the whole thing hinges upon one man (Paul), who wasn’t even a disciple of the pre-crucified Jesus. The Gospels, plus the epistles, makes for a robust, cumulative case.

quote:
logical arguments for the existence of God

quote:
I haven’t heard such a thing. Can you share one with us, or post a link?

Don’t play coy with me, Newman! (Seinfeld reference) I would be more than surprised to find out that there was a single argument that you have not heard. Rather, I’m sure you find all of them lacking in one way or another. There is no “silver bullet” argument that kills atheism. What there is, is a cumulative effect when all the arguments are considered in a complementary manner- with the only prerequisite being an open mind (which I do believe you lack).
I will introduce and attempt to unpack this cumulative (though not exhaustive) list of arguments in my next post. Coming soon. As always, I wish you well my friend.

2 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board