A "proof" for God

[mgoforth]

You just changed horses. Your point wasn’t about non-violence, it was about earthly gain. You said “Certainly heavenly glory, but I can’t think of much from a “worldly” point of view that they gained. Love and admiration from their fellow sufferers, but there are far easier ways to find worldly admiration.” My answer was another example of those who die without thought of earthly gain.

But even your new point is dangerous, inviting the immediate come back of how many civilians has the Christian US killed with drone attacks?

The US is hardly a Christian nation anymore… Our society pays lip-service to God while murdering the innocent (abortion).

Nope. For instance the Islamists shout Allāhu Akbar (I-AM is the greater). They too believe they are doing it for God.

Their concept of God doesn’t make much logical sense…but that’s a whole other thread.

Whoa! Not even remotely the same. You’ve got photos and documents of Lincoln. As I said before, James, patron saint of my country supposedly came to Spain, then returned to Jerusalem were he was decapitated by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12), then “his body was taken up by angels, and sailed in a rudderless, unattended boat to Iria Flavia in Iberia, where a massive rock closed around his relics”.

Does anyone claim that Lincoln moved to Chile, then for some reason returned to Washington were he was shot, then his body was taken up by angels, and sailed in a rudderless, unattended boat back to Chile, where a massive rock closed around his relics?

We have photos of Lincoln being assassinated? That’s news to me. :bigyikes:

Let me ask, do you believe any of the miraculous stories from the Bible? If so, why can’t you believe the story of St. James? If not…why not? It’s part of the Christian faith to believe in miracles.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

Works for me.

 

[inocente]

The US is hardly a Christian nation anymore… Our society pays lip-service to God while murdering the innocent (abortion).

7 in 10 people in the US identify as Christian, and non-Christians will not make the distinctions which you do.

Their concept of God doesn’t make much logical sense…but that’s a whole other thread.

Our concept of God may not make much logical sense to them…but that’s a whole other thread.

We have photos of Lincoln being assassinated? That’s news to me. :bigyikes:

No, I mean we have lots of evidence that he was real.

Let me ask, do you believe any of the miraculous stories from the Bible? If so, why can’t you believe the story of St. James? If not…why not? It’s part of the Christian faith to believe in miracles.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia says there are “several difficulties” with the legend of James.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

The US is hardly a Christian nation anymore… Our society pays lip-service to God while murdering the innocent

In your view, during what time was the US a Christian nation?

 

[tonyrey]

No. I’d like to see if you can look at them critically and point one out yourself. Or say that there are no flaws at all.

One apparent flaw is that there are no eye-witness accounts of the Resurrection but that objection could be raised to many events universally accepted as historical facts.

 

[ThunderFox]

1. God has promised to perserve his word(its in the psalms i believe) also look at the catholic church its still there after 2000 years
2. Paul writes
   For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:20-21

So people like atheists deny that God has existed so God essentially darkened there hearts and let them go there own ways

1. There is also bible verses that say God hardens hearts

 

[mgoforth]

In your view, during what time was the US a Christian nation?

Possibly at the very beginning…but there were many un-Christian practices then as well. Basically the point I was trying to make is that equating US military drone strikes with flaws in Christianity just because 7 out of 10 Americans claim to be Christian is silly at best.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’” Matthew 7:21-23

 

[inocente]

Possibly at the very beginning…but there were many un-Christian practices then as well. Basically the point I was trying to make is that equating US military drone strikes with flaws in Christianity just because 7 out of 10 Americans claim to be Christian is silly at best.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’” Matthew 7:21-23

If they identify themselves as Christian then it is for Christ, not you, to judge them.

Plus there’s a fallacy:

Person A: "No Christian would endorse drone strikes."
Person B: "I am a Christian, and I endorse drone strikes."
Person A: "Then you are not a true Christian."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

[mgoforth]

If they identify themselves as Christian then it is for Christ, not you, to judge them.

Actually, Christians are encouraged to judge the actions of other Christians, but are unable to judge their motivations, and are forbidden to judge the state of their souls. It’s a topic that’s been discussed a million times in other threads. Interesting that the verse so frequently quoted in defense of the “don’t judge me!” argument is:

*“Judge not, that you be not judged.” * Matthew 7:1

While if we read the entire context of the 7th chapter of Matthew, it becomes clear that Christ isn’t telling us to close our eyes blindly to everything others do:

“You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.” Matthew 7:16-20

The latter is what I’m trying to express in this thread…there are (and have been) many Christians in the US who don’t speak, behave, advocate in a Christ-like manner. You’re correct that it’s not my place to say whether these people (or even myself) will end up in Hell. But I’m actually following Christ’s specific commandment by evaluating their actions or speech and deciding whether it’s morally right or wrong.

Hope that helps.

Plus there’s a fallacy:

Person A: "No Christian would endorse drone strikes."
Person B: "I am a Christian, and I endorse drone strikes."
Person A: "Then you are not a true Christian."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

That would be a fallacy, but I’m afraid you mis-understand my intent. I’m not saying “no Christian would endorse drone strikes”. Perhaps drone strikes are allowable in certain cases, and in others they may not be. The Church uses the “just war” doctrine to evaluate those cases. But that’s not really what I objected to about your counter-argument.

What I was trying to say is that your original conclusions don’t follow from the premises you gave:

inocente:

But even your new point is dangerous, inviting the immediate come back of how many civilians has the Christian US killed with drone attacks?

So in other words, I read your hypothetical counter-argument as claiming that:

• Most citizens of the US are Christians.
• Therefore the US is a Christian nation.
• The US military engages in drone strikes.
• Therefore the Christian US endorses drone strikes.
• Therefore Christianity endorses violence.

The first conclusion “the US is a Christian nation” doesn’t follow from “most citizens in the US are Christians” because in order for a nation to be Christian, it would need to adhere to Christian principles, or at least hold those principles up as the ideal. The US does neither. Our laws define this nation as secular, with a separation of Church and State. Abortion is 100% legal and 100% non-Christian. Divorce and remarriage is 100% legal and 100% non-Christian. Homosexual “marriage” seems to sadly be on it’s way to becoming 100% legal and is 100% non-Christian. You’re free to disagree with me on those specifics…I go by what the Catholic Church teaches. But in short, the US is not a Christian nation.

The second conclusion attempts to link actions of the US military with endorsement by the supposedly Christian US populace. I’m fairly certain (can’t quote any hard numbers) that the majority of Americans are firmly opposed to drone strikes. In any event it doesn’t matter, because the US is not a Christian nation.

The third conclusion is that because the Christian US engages in violence to pursue its goals, then Christianity must advocate violence with frequent civilian casualties in the pursuit of goals. That of course, is false. In any event it doesn’t matter, because the US is not a Christian nation.

So I can’t agree that my original argument is dangerous based on that counter-argument.

 

[ClearWater]

Islamic martyrdom, right from the founding? There are examples of slaves embracing Islam and being continuously tortured by their masters. Between the founding of Islam and the formation of the Caliphate, persecution was absolutely rampant.

Well, I realize Muslims have also died for their faith. However, the difference between the apostles being willing to resist torture, and death, and Muslims, is that the apostles were WITNESSES, and many others were witnesses, thousands who saw the multiplication of the bread and fish, to the major events. Whereas, in the case of Muslims, Mohammad is said to have received inspiration, but it was all private revelation, far as I know. There were no witnesses.

So, with the apostles, the WITNESSES, to the major events were willing to undergo persecution. If fact, the word martyr means…witness.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Well, I realize Muslims have also died for their faith. However, the difference between the apostles being willing to resist torture, and death, and Muslims, is that the apostles were WITNESSES, and many others were witnesses, thousands who saw the multiplication of the bread and fish, to the major events. Whereas, in the case of Muslims, Mohammad is said to have received inspiration, but it was all private revelation, far as I know. There were no witnesses.

So, with the apostles, the WITNESSES, to the major events were willing to undergo persecution. If fact, the word martyr means…witness.

Mohammad’s revelations occurred almost entirely in public- he would be wandering about doing leader things and then suddenly the relatively normal guy would suddenly deliver long and exceedingly poetic verses. Your versions seems closer to Joseph Smith.

Furthermore, the Hadiths do in fact attribute miracles to Mohammad. And to be frank, I’m not sure that matters- people were convinced Jesus was legit, and people were convinced Mohammad was legit. The basis of this doesn’t seem relevant- people were willing to die in both cases.

 

[mgoforth]

Mohammad’s revelations occurred almost entirely in public- he would be wandering about doing leader things and then suddenly the relatively normal guy would suddenly deliver long and exceedingly poetic verses. Your versions seems closer to Joseph Smith.

Furthermore, the Hadiths do in fact attribute miracles to Mohammad. And to be frank, I’m not sure that matters- people were convinced Jesus was legit, and people were convinced Mohammad was legit. The basis of this doesn’t seem relevant- people were willing to die in both cases.

Based on the very little I know of Islamic history, Mohammad’s followers were not martyrs in the same sense as the Apostles. They were fighters and bandits who “lived by the sword and died by the sword”.

From Wikipedia:

Up to this point the Muhammad told people to endure insults and abuse. Because of being persecuted and economically-uprooted by their Meccan persecutors, Muhammad claimed that God gave him permission to fight the Meccans.

The permission to fight was given in many stages during Muhammad’s prophetic mission:

• At first, the Muslims were only allowed to fight the Meccan Quraysh, because they were the first to oppress the Muslims in Mecca. Muslims were allowed to seize their goods, but not those tribes which the Muhammad made a treaty with.

• Then Muhammad and the Muslims were allowed to fight pagan tribes that allied with the Quraysh.

• Then Muhammad and the Muslims were allowed to fight the Jewish tribes of Medina, when these tribes violated the Constitution of Medina and their pact with the Muslims.

• Subsequently, Muhammad and the Muslims were allowed to fight the “People of the Book” (Christian and Jews). If the People of the Book paid a poll tax (jizya), then the Muslims were forbidden to fight them.

• Muslims were required to make peace with any polytheist, Jews or Christians who embraced Islam, and were required to embrace them as fellow Muslims.

So Mohammad himself instigated the violence that has always been at the forefront of Islam. Can you imagine Christ looking down from the cross at St John and saying “Well, now that they’ve tortured and crucified me, God has given us permission to fight back.”?

IMHO, Islam is just rife with inconsistencies from the very beginning. Christ and the Church have been consistent for 2000 years and counting.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Based on the very little I know of Islamic history, Mohammad’s followers were not martyrs in the same sense as the Apostles. They were fighters and bandits who “lived by the sword and died by the sword”.

From Wikipedia:

So Mohammad himself instigated the violence that has always been at the forefront of Islam. Can you imagine Christ looking down from the cross at St John and saying “Well, now that they’ve tortured and crucified me, God has given us permission to fight back.”?

IMHO, Islam is just rife with inconsistencies from the very beginning. Christ and the Church have been consistent for 2000 years and counting.

That’s during the conquests, but Islam did not immediately leap from nothingness (as the passage you cited alluded) into a regional power. Mohammad himself was relatively safe due to his clan’s protection (until it was revoked), but there are more than a few records of slaves converting while their masters remained pagan- as one can imagine, this often resulted in torture and death.

Furthermore, calling the Church consistent over 2000 years seems like a stretch. The Church no longer conquers new lands for itself, organizes invasions of Israel, sanctions attacks on the Orthodox Church (4th Crusade, albeit, after the fact), sanctions colonialism, or demands that Protestants be repressed.

You can claim that doctrine has been relatively stable, but the same can be said of Islam.

 

[inocente]

Actually, Christians are encouraged to judge the actions of other Christians, but are unable to judge their motivations, and are forbidden to judge the state of their souls. It’s a topic that’s been discussed a million times in other threads. Interesting that the verse so frequently quoted in defense of the “don’t judge me!” argument is:

*“Judge not, that you be not judged.” * Matthew 7:1

While if we read the entire context of the 7th chapter of Matthew, it becomes clear that Christ isn’t telling us to close our eyes blindly to everything others do:

"You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:16-20

The latter is what I’m trying to express in this thread…there are (and have been) many Christians in the US who don’t speak, behave, advocate in a Christ-like manner. You’re correct that it’s not my place to say whether these people (or even myself) will end up in Hell. But I’m actually following Christ’s specific commandment by evaluating their actions or speech and deciding whether it’s morally right or wrong.

Hope that helps…

You can judge whatever you like with one exception - it is not for you to judge who does or doesn’t belong to Christ. Christ is the shepherd, you don’t get a say. “For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.” Romans 14

*So in other words, I read your hypothetical counter-argument as claiming that:

• Most citizens of the US are Christians.
• Therefore the US is a Christian nation.
• The US military engages in drone strikes.
• Therefore the Christian US endorses drone strikes.
• Therefore Christianity endorses violence.

The first conclusion “the US is a Christian nation” doesn’t follow from “most citizens in the US are Christians” because in order for a nation to be Christian, it would need to adhere to Christian principles, or at least hold those principles up as the ideal. The US does neither. Our laws define this nation as secular, with a separation of Church and State. Abortion is 100% legal and 100% non-Christian. Divorce and remarriage is 100% legal and 100% non-Christian. Homosexual “marriage” seems to sadly be on it’s way to becoming 100% legal and is 100% non-Christian. You’re free to disagree with me on those specifics…I go by what the Catholic Church teaches. But in short, the US is not a Christian nation.*

Christianity is not a political party, in Pope Francis’ words it is not “an idealogy amongst ideologies”. The US is a secular democracy, the majority rule, so a large proportion of Christians must have wanted all the things you say they shouldn’t want. Personally I would say that we must each make up our own mind, follow our own conscience, never just do whatever someone else says. Romans 14 again - “I was following orders” is not a defense.

The second conclusion attempts to link actions of the US military with endorsement by the supposedly Christian US populace. I’m fairly certain (can’t quote any hard numbers) that the majority of Americans are firmly opposed to drone strikes. In any event it doesn’t matter, because the US is not a Christian nation.

You are misinformed, a majority are in favor:

usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/11/poll-americans-still-approve-of-drone-strike-program
gallup.com/poll/161474/support-drone-attacks-terrorists-abroad.aspx

*The third conclusion is that because the Christian US engages in violence to pursue its goals, then Christianity must advocate violence with frequent civilian casualties in the pursuit of goals. That of course, is false. In any event it doesn’t matter, because the US is not a Christian nation.

So I can’t agree that my original argument is dangerous based on that counter-argument.*

You don’t sound as if you try to see things from others’ points of point. That’s incredibly dangerous, it’s how wars start. In post #70 you say you know little of Islamic history, yet you seem to think Muslims, even semi-literate rural peasants, should somehow be able to follow all the intricacies of your arguments. As far as they are concerned, the US bombs them and the US is Christian. Period.

Have a look at the photo in the following article. Put yourself in the head of one of those two guys. See the world through his eyes.

world.time.com/2013/11/30/yemens-new-ways-of-protesting-drone-strikes-graffiti-and-poetry/

 

[mgoforth]

You can judge whatever you like with one exception - it is not for you to judge who does or doesn’t belong to Christ. Christ is the shepherd, you don’t get a say. “For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.” Romans 14

Yes, that’s exactly what I said. Judging “who does or doesn’t belong to Christ” would be judging the state of their soul, which I already said we’re forbidden from doing. Please read my responses more carefully.

Christianity is not a political party, in Pope Francis’ words it is not “an idealogy amongst ideologies”. The US is a secular democracy, the majority rule, so a large proportion of Christians must have wanted all the things you say they shouldn’t want.

It’s not me who says that Christians shouldn’t want those things, it’s Christ Himself and the Church He personally founded.

Personally I would say that we must each make up our own mind, follow our own conscience, never just do whatever someone else says. Romans 14 again - “I was following orders” is not a defense.

That’s probably the exact thought that Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, etc had…and now we have over 30,000 Protestant splinter groups that can’t agree on much. Is that what God really wants?

“If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.” Philippians 2:1-8

Following our consciences is a good thing…once they’re properly formed. Proper formation requires us to learn from someone trustworthy. Learning requires us to submit our own will and “just do whatever someone else says”.

*Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” *Ephesians 6:1-3

*Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. *Colossians 3:22

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Hebrews 13:17

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:19-20

You are misinformed, a majority are in favor:

Thanks for the correction.

You don’t sound as if you try to see things from others’ points of point. That’s incredibly dangerous, it’s how wars start.

Where in the world do you come up with this? Are you declaring war on me? :whacky:

In post #70 you say you know little of Islamic history, yet you seem to think Muslims, even semi-literate rural peasants, should somehow be able to follow all the intricacies of your arguments. As far as they are concerned, the US bombs them and the US is Christian. Period.

Again, where did you get the idea that I think “semi-literate rural peasants” should be expected to follow these arguments??? I posted this argument on a Catholic message board in the fully-literate western world. Islam came up as a side topic, which I’ve tried to patiently answer. Muslims were not the intended audience in the first place. I really had atheists in mind when I wrote the first post, which is why I called it a “proof” for God.

Have a look at the photo in the following article. Put yourself in the head of one of those two guys. See the world through his eyes.

world.time.com/2013/11/30/yemens-new-ways-of-protesting-drone-strikes-graffiti-and-poetry/

All well and good. Empathy is great and I’m for it 100%. Now could we get this thread back on the rails? Thanks.

 

[inocente]

Yes, that’s exactly what I said. Judging “who does or doesn’t belong to Christ” would be judging the state of their soul, which I already said we’re forbidden from doing. Please read my responses more carefully.

If you meant belonging to Christ then it would have been good to say that, for those of us not skilled in mind reading.

It’s not me who says that Christians shouldn’t want those things, it’s Christ Himself and the Church He personally founded.

Jesus didn’t say anything about any of them.

*That’s probably the exact thought that Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, etc had…and now we have over 30,000 Protestant splinter groups that can’t agree on much. Is that what God really wants? *

Sounds like you’re still saying there are christians and there are those who are True Christians, but no, you still don’t get to decide. How do you know the mind of God?

I think your 30,000 figure is a tired old internet fairytale, please post the source data.

"If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind." Philippians 2:1-8

No, he doesn’t mean we should all be zombies.

Following our consciences is a good thing…once they’re properly formed. Proper formation requires us to learn from someone trustworthy. Learning requires us to submit our own will and “just do whatever someone else says”.

Ah, so people who agree with you have properly formed consciences, and those who don’t don’t. Sounds like Orwell’s 1984.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Ephesians 6:1-3

Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. **Colossians 3:22

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves**: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Hebrews 13:17

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20
Yikes! Do you really think the NT preaches that everyone should mindlessly vote as you tell them? Really? Yikes!

Thanks for the correction.

Pleasure.

Where in the world do you come up with this? Are you declaring war on me? :whacky:

No, I’m asking you to have empathy. It’s a Christian thing.

Again, where did you get the idea that I think “semi-literate rural peasants” should be expected to follow these arguments??? I posted this argument on a Catholic message board in the fully-literate western world.

Islam came up as a side topic, which I’ve tried to patiently answer. Muslims were not the intended audience in the first place. I really had atheists in mind when I wrote the first post, which is why I called it a “proof” for God.
Oh, so only an intellectual elite can follow your arguments? Atheists are more intelligent than Muslims? Wot?

All well and good. Empathy is great and I’m for it 100%. Now could we get this thread back on the rails? Thanks.

Not sure where the rails are after you’re driven off at so many tangents. But OK, your “proof” (your quote marks) hinges on 11 of the apostles being “tortured and executed for teaching the same message written in the Gospels”. I gave a summary of James, which the Catholic Encyclopedia doubts is historically accurate. How certain do you think an atheist can be on what is accurate and what is legend about the others?

 

[ClearWater]

Okay…we have the following scenarios:

1. Jesus rose…Christianity
2. Jesus didn’t rise…apostles were deceived…hallucination
3. Jesus didn’t rise…apostles were myth makers…myth
4. Jesus didn’t rise…apostles deceived… conspiracy
5. Jesus didn’t die…swoon theory

Okay…we can start there.

 

[mgoforth]

Jesus didn’t say anything about any of them.

“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” Luke 16:18

“Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Matthew 19:16-19

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” Matthew 19:4-6

Sounds like you’re still saying there are christians and there are those who are True Christians, but no, you still don’t get to decide. How do you know the mind of God?

Everyone baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a Christian. Not all Christians are good Christians. I know the mind of God through His guidance of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ Himself.

I think your 30,000 figure is a tired old internet fairytale, please post the source data.

• According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America [Protestant] (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990): “As of 1980 David B. Barrett identified 20,800 Christian denominations worldwide . . .” (“Denominationalism,” page 351). “…classified them into seven major blocs and 156 ecclesiastical traditions.”
• According to the United Nations statistics there were over 23,000 competing and often contradictory denominations worldwide (World Census of Religious Activities ). This was cited in Frank Schaeffer’s book Dancing Alone (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1994), page 4. Schaeffer is Orthodox.
• The 1999 Encyclopedia of Christianity has this to say: “In 1985 David Barrett could count 22,150 distinct denominations worldwide.” (edited by E. Fahlbusch, et al., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999, vol. 1, p. 800, s.v. “Denomination”). Barrett is the statistical editor.
• Again citing the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982): “. . . a projected 22,190 by 1985 . . . The present net increase is 270 denominations each year (five new ones a week).” (pages 15-18)

No, he doesn’t mean we should all be zombies.

I don’t see the word zombies in there. He says we should be “of one mind”, meaning we agree on things. Protestants do not agree.

Ah, so people who agree with you have properly formed consciences, and those who don’t don’t. Sounds like Orwell’s 1984

.

People who agree with the Catholic Church have properly formed consciences.

Yikes! Do you really think the NT preaches that everyone should mindlessly vote as you tell them? Really? Yikes!

Voting??? You’re jumping all around. Makes me rather dizzy :hypno:

Oh, so only an intellectual elite can follow your arguments? Atheists are more intelligent than Muslims? Wot?

Please don’t turn into an outright troll on me…

Not sure where the rails are after you’re driven off at so many tangents. But OK, your “proof” (your quote marks) hinges on 11 of the apostles being “tortured and executed for teaching the same message written in the Gospels”. I gave a summary of James, which the Catholic Encyclopedia doubts is historically accurate. How certain do you think an atheist can be on what is accurate and what is legend about the others?

Anyone - atheist, Catholic, Baptist, you, me, President Obama…anyone - can be as certain as God gives them the grace to be. Faith is a gift that’s offered and can’t be rammed down anyone’s throat. If atheists don’t get there based on the argument I’ve presented then perhaps they’ll get there another way, or perhaps not… Nothing I can do about that.

 

[inocente]

“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” Luke 16:18

That’s religious marriage before God, not secular before the state.

I’m going to just make brief comments on other off-topic items to put them to bed.

• According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America [Protestant] (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990): “As of 1980 David B. Barrett identified 20,800 Christian denominations worldwide . . .” (“Denominationalism,” page 351). “…classified them into seven major blocs and 156 ecclesiastical traditions.”

• According to the United Nations statistics there were over 23,000 competing and often contradictory denominations worldwide (World Census of Religious Activities ). This was cited in Frank Schaeffer’s book Dancing Alone (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1994), page 4. Schaeffer is Orthodox.

• The 1999 Encyclopedia of Christianity has this to say: “In 1985 David Barrett could count 22,150 distinct denominations worldwide.” (edited by E. Fahlbusch, et al., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999, vol. 1, p. 800, s.v. “Denomination”). Barrett is the statistical editor.

• Again citing the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982): “. . . a projected 22,190 by 1985 . . . The present net increase is 270 denominations each year (five new ones a week).” (pages 15-18)

That’s extracted from philvaz.com/apologetics/a120.htm, which also says “No doubt some Catholic apologists (even more well-known ones) use them as a kind of “folk truth” – having heard them bandied about, and we will examine some serious problems with them below.”

The main serious problems being that the figures are from a single source only, and it defines denomination as “aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country” (i.e. no attempt to merge across borders).

I don’t see the word zombies in there. He says we should be “of one mind”, meaning we agree on things. Protestants do not agree.

Noooooooooooo! Say NO to quote-mining! Read in context, then you’ll see he means have the same mind as Christ, be unselfish as is Christ (Philippians 2:1-11).

People who agree with the Catholic Church have properly formed consciences.

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

Anyone - atheist, Catholic, Baptist, you, me, President Obama…anyone - can be as certain as God gives them the grace to be. Faith is a gift that’s offered and can’t be rammed down anyone’s throat. If atheists don’t get there based on the argument I’ve presented then perhaps they’ll get there another way, or perhaps not… Nothing I can do about that.

OK, so back on-topic, how certain do you think an atheist can be on what is fact and what is legend about 11 of the apostles being “tortured and executed for teaching the same message written in the Gospels”?

 

[mgoforth]

OK, so back on-topic, how certain do you think an atheist can be on what is fact and what is legend about 11 of the apostles being “tortured and executed for teaching the same message written in the Gospels”?

To be honest I’m not sure. I feel that many atheists are far less open-minded than they claim to be, and they probably don’t even realize it. It’s really hard for anyone to be completely objective about these things, which is why God is the one who has to give us the grace to have faith in the first place. Because of our fallen nature, we can’t even get to square one (being open to the possibility of God) by our own power. I think for an atheist to change any of their positions - which are rooted in emotion to some degree just like everyone else’s biases - they would have to consciously or even unconsciously reach out to God and ask for that gift of openness.

As to how certain anyone can be about the Apostles’ martyrdoms…there are some records from non-Christian historians (Josephus again and others) of the time concerning the death of James the Just in Jerusalem. The details of the other accounts are based on Church tradition, but should they really be so hard to believe based on what is widely accepted to be true?

• Jesus was executed for the message He initiated.
• St. Stephen was stoned for the same message.
• St. James was also stoned for refusing to change his teaching.
• Over the next three centuries, the martyrdom of thousands of Christians is well established.

The Jewish leaders were very jealous of their authority, and obviously didn’t hesitate long before stoning someone or turning them over to the Romans as a criminal. At first the Romans were more interested in maintaining order, but also didn’t like challenges to their own Gods. It’s basic (fallen) human nature. We fear things that are new and different, and usually there’s going to be a violent reaction if the new and different thing doesn’t go away.

I guess I just don’t find it hard to believe in the slightest that people would be put to death for attempting to overturn the social order of the time. As for whether an atheist would be convinced…it’s between them and God.

 

[inocente]

To be honest I’m not sure. I feel that many atheists are far less open-minded than they claim to be, and they probably don’t even realize it. It’s really hard for anyone to be completely objective about these things, which is why God is the one who has to give us the grace to have faith in the first place. Because of our fallen nature, we can’t even get to square one (being open to the possibility of God) by our own power. I think for an atheist to change any of their positions - which are rooted in emotion to some degree just like everyone else’s biases - they would have to consciously or even unconsciously reach out to God and ask for that gift of openness.

As to how certain anyone can be about the Apostles’ martyrdoms…there are some records from non-Christian historians (Josephus again and others) of the time concerning the death of James the Just in Jerusalem. The details of the other accounts are based on Church tradition, but should they really be so hard to believe based on what is widely accepted to be true?

• Jesus was executed for the message He initiated.
• St. Stephen was stoned for the same message.
• St. James was also stoned for refusing to change his teaching.
• Over the next three centuries, the martyrdom of thousands of Christians is well established.

The Jewish leaders were very jealous of their authority, and obviously didn’t hesitate long before stoning someone or turning them over to the Romans as a criminal. At first the Romans were more interested in maintaining order, but also didn’t like challenges to their own Gods. It’s basic (fallen) human nature. We fear things that are new and different, and usually there’s going to be a violent reaction if the new and different thing doesn’t go away.

I guess I just don’t find it hard to believe in the slightest that people would be put to death for attempting to overturn the social order of the time. As for whether an atheist would be convinced…it’s between them and God.

You contradict yourself in the highlighted parts: first you say we should accept beliefs that are widely accepted, then that it’s a failing to hang on to widely accepted beliefs.

If we lived in ancient Rome, would we believe in Zeus because lots of others do? Probably. Would we think cult leaders who ended up on the wrong side of the law were crazy? Probably.

If we were leaders in Galilee would we try to keep the occupying forces quiet? Probably. If we were the occupying forces would we try to keep the occupied people quiet? Probably.

And of course, the $64,000 question: if we were trying to found a new religion, would we want there to be legends of martyrs?

I think it’s not possible for an atheist to reach out to God - I’m a Zeus atheist, so it would be impossible for me to reach out to Zeus. Leading by example in how we lead our lives might be a better bet.