29 Aug 16
Originally posted by leunammiSo what makes you say that you wouldn't be interested in the subject of God if you were a non-Christian theist/religionist?
Yes, I think people with other beliefs, other religions, non-Christian theists, are interested in the subject of God.
Originally posted by FMFHad you prior to have becoming a Christian found other religions interesting... what I mean is, were you interested in the subject of god? Subsequently, now that you are not a christian, are you interested in the subject of God. Why/why not?
So what makes you say that you wouldn't be interested in the subject of God if you were a non-Christian theist/religionist?
29 Aug 16
Originally posted by leunammiI've always been interested in religions; losing my Christian faith didn't alter that. I'm interested in the impact that ideology (be it religion, politics, or whatever) has on people's intellectual and interpersonal behaviour.
Had you prior to have becoming a Christian found other religions interesting... what I mean is, were you interested in the subject of god? Subsequently, now that you are not a christian, are you interested in the subject of God. Why/why not?
29 Aug 16
Originally posted by leunammiThat's quite breathtaking. You claim that your religion is true and the others "myths" because your holy book, which is about the only near contemporaneous historical evidence for Christ himself (as opposed to the presence of Christians, e.g. Tacitus' mention of "Chrestus", or various biblical figures such as Pilate with the Pilate stone), has him fulfill some prophecies? Incidentally that probability calculation is pseudo-scientific bull. They have not stated the basis for assigning a probability of 1 in 10^18 for fulfilling eight prophecies. They do not appear to have any real method of assigning probabilities and simply multiplying won't work because fulfilling one prophecy may be correlated with fulfilling another. So I really don't think that unsubstantiated claims that Christ fulfilled a lot of prophecies prove very much concerning the veracity of Christianity. What is more, even if Christ had fulfilled all the prophecies you claim it would not necessarily prove other religions are false.
The difference with all your man made/mythological examples of gods is that they are just that, myths. The God of the bible became a man, died on the cross, rose on the third day and ascended to the right hand of the Father... fulfilling over 300 prophecies handed down over thousands of years, exact amount varies depending on the source, some put it over 4 ...[text shortened]... es, including religious rites. He was very much involved in the initiation of boys into manhood.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIs it then your belief that Jesus as a historical figure did not exist?
That's quite breathtaking. You claim that your religion is true and the others "myths" because your holy book, which is about the only near contemporaneous historical evidence for Christ himself (as opposed to the presence of Christians, e.g. Tacitus' mention of "Chrestus", or various biblical figures such as Pilate with the Pilate stone), has hi ...[text shortened]... fulfilled all the prophecies you claim it would not necessarily prove other religions are false.
Originally posted by leunammiI have no particular belief in that regard. It is plausible that there was an historical Jesus, however, the existence of the Bible and Christian Tradition is not proof that there was an historical Jesus. What is more even if there were an historical Jesus then that does not entail that he was the Son of God. My position is one of classical skepticism, so I do not deny the possibility. I am an agnostic. However that does mean that I'll strongly criticize claims that one religion is true and others are not unless I see a really good argument.
Is it then your belief that Jesus as a historical figure did not exist?
29 Aug 16
Originally posted by vivifyThat would be zero.
To Christians here, what other gods have you learned about that you find interesting? Keep in mind that this thread is NOT some kind of trap. I'm genuinely interested in what other gods pique your interest, for whatever reason. I'm not asking in the sense that you actually believe in this other god, but only in the sense that you found this god to be inter ...[text shortened]... superhero aspects of his character. I found the 12 Labors of Hercules to be pretty fascinating.
Many of the gods I've studied demand human sacrifice. It was proven recently that the same could be said of Greek gods like Zeus.
Conversely, my God sacrificed himself for me.
Who compares to Jesus in terms of his righteousness and wisdom? No one, that's who.
Originally posted by whodeyHowever if you recall the story of Abraham's abortive sacrifice of Isaac the narrative would not make sense, either straightforwardly or mythologically, had there not been an era when the sacrifice of humans to the God of Abraham was required.
That would be zero.
Many of the gods I've studied demand human sacrifice. It was proven recently that the same could be said of Greek gods like Zeus.
Conversely, my God sacrificed himself for me.
Who compares to Jesus in terms of his righteousness and wisdom? No one, that's who.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAre there any religions that you consider to be true, by true I mean true in the sense of a bonified creator?
I have no particular belief in that regard. It is plausible that there was an historical Jesus, however, the existence of the Bible and Christian Tradition is not proof that there was an historical Jesus. What is more even if there were an historical Jesus then that does not entail that he was the Son of God. My position is one of classical skepticism ...[text shortened]... iticize claims that one religion is true and others are not unless I see a really good argument.
29 Aug 16
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtActually, taken in context the story made perfect sense.
However if you recall the story of Abraham's abortive sacrifice of Isaac the narrative would not make sense, either straightforwardly or mythologically, had there not been an era when the sacrifice of humans to the God of Abraham was required.
Religions during the time of Abraham routinely engaged in child sacrifice. So what does the God of the Bible do? He begins the same process, only, he stops Abraham from going through with it showing Abraham and the world that the God of the Bible is different.
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by whodeyBut the story implies that Abraham's God required human sacrifice before Abraham and Isaac. Your words: "Actually, taken in context the story made perfect sense." are a proxy for "This is my interpretation.". Based on the story alone one cannot conclude anything other than that the God of Abraham demanded human sacrifice until the covenant with Abraham.
Actually, taken in context the story made perfect sense.
Religions during the time of Abraham routinely engaged in child sacrifice. So what does the God of the Bible do? He begins the same process, only, he stops Abraham from going through with it showing Abraham and the world that the God of the Bible is different.
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by whodeyIf the Jehovah's Witnesses have their understanding of the message of the Bible right, then Christians should be prepared to die (or be willing to let their children die) for want of medical treatment (that includes blood transfusions) in order either to please God or to not displease Him. Considering the treatment could (and does) save lives, forgoing it in order to supposedly obey God is clearly a form of human sacrifice.
Many of the gods I've studied demand human sacrifice.