P
I believe there is God, I believe Christ was God, persuade me of the benefits of renouncing this belief
- Status
W
worldwideweary
Guest
Yes, by the grace of God, but I choose not to verbalize this saying derived from the faithful Roman in the gospel. Must’ve been a hell of a guy
Lest you forget, as once said similarly by a Jewish/Christian/Benjaminite: when you are weak, then you are strong.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes! And good for you for having faith in these Catholic online sources!
W
worldwideweary
Guest
Hebrews 1:11 - Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.All mystics know God, www.
What does this even mean?
Absolute faith is intended here to describe a link to that which is absolutely non-apparent–of what is hoped for. The eye has not seen, etc.
W
worldwideweary
Guest
Just because one says “according to” a source does not necessitate “faith in” a source
C’mon.
B
Bradski
Guest
So to be clear here, is it your position that the more people who die for what they believe, the greater the chance that what they believe is true?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Can you offer some examples of people who suffered torture and gruesome deaths for a belief that they knew to be false?
B
Bradski
Guest
‘Someone said that he’s God’.
‘Well, then he should be able to, I dunno, walk on water’.
‘How do you know he didn’t?’
‘I heard that as the son of God, he can walk on water’.
‘Who said that?’
‘This guy I was talking to. Said he could do it’.
‘I was talking to this bloke about Jesus walking on water…’
‘Hang on. He walked on water?’
‘Apparently. Anyway…’
‘He must be God. He walked on water. Someone I know told me. He’s a pretty honest guy. Why would he lie’.
‘No, it’s true. My mate told me. Someone he knows quite well told him’.
‘What, he saw Him do it’.
‘Well, I guess so. He was pretty definite’.
‘It’s a fact. He was seen doing it. True as I’m sitting on this donkey’.
B
Bradski
Guest
None. But that wasn’t the question.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Excellent.
Then we have abolished arguments you have in the future that there was some weird conspiracy among the first century Christians to lie about seeing Jesus alive again.
They all believed he was alive.
And died under torture professing so.
Whether they actually saw him is, of course, not proven by their martyrdom.
Only that they believed it, so much so that they were willing to die horrific deaths for what they believed to be true.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Straw man. Yawn.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Makes me wonder how many atheists would die for their “faith” in atheism.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Mocking Scripture. How original. The atheist forums must seem like an echo chamber. Such anger!
B
Bradski
Guest
A straw man? Uh? I am simply asking you to confirm your position. And I think that you might be trying to avoid clarifying what you said because it doesn’t sound so valid when you use it in any other context.
So let me try again. You have stated that if there are a number of people who die for what they believe in (not, as has been attempted to suggest, a belief in what they know to be false), then that fact in itself can be considered evidence that what they believed in is true.
If that is your position, then I may have some further comments. If it isn’t, then we can dismiss what you previously posted.
None. One can’t have faith in atheism. It is simply a lack of belief in gods (and how many times have I had to post that…).
We haven’t discussed a great deal with each other. Give it some time. You’ll see that I’m a pretty easy going kinda guy. Mildly amused most of the time. Bemused at times. Frustrated on occasion. I do my best to be polite – I liken forum discussions to talking to someone in a bar over a beer. But if something makes me angry, then I’ll be sure to let you know.
W
worldwideweary
Guest
P.S. Urbandictionary’s (the vox populi dictionary of sorts) definition of the “Good for you” phrase is derogatory, so a word to the wise: you might not want to say that to some people, as it may be interpreted as what some of the vulgar folks down over there think of the phrase rather than, y’know, we refined chaps.
Warning: Explicit content - Good For You
M
minkymurph
Guest
It is not the case Jesus must be God because he walked on water.
The authors of the Gospels go to considerable lengths to establish Jesus credentials in terms of they claim he is. There’s a lot more to being God than walking on water.
According to Scripture prophets performed miracles. None of them were believed to God.
In fact, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest the Apostles believed Jesus was God during his earthly life. He was believed to have been a prophet, teacher, healer, Messiah. Only John’s Gospel addresses the divinity of Christ.
In the first century there were lots of beliefs in circulation as to who Christ was. These beliefs are documented outside the Bible. If my memory serves me right what Catholics now believe concerning Christ was decided at the Council of Nicaea AD 325 after much deliberation. Thus, the belief Christ was God did not come about as a result of someone riding into the town square on a donkey, telling someone they saw a guy walking on water, they say, ‘Hey - he must be God.’ They go off and tell lots of others who just fall into line
It can be argued the Council of Nicaea were wrong, but it cannot be argued they were gullible, uneducated people willing to believe a guy was God because someone in the marketplace claimed their mate told them he saw him walking on water.
M
minkymurph
Guest
That depends on your point of view and what you want to prove. What can be said is it is unlikely the authors of Scripture wrote what they did without reason or purpose.
It is not a case of no evidence at all. Rather a case ofThe church should have spent some times to separate the wheat from the chaff… but did not. A few hundred years ago everything was believed to be the exact, precise, historically correct word of God. No “interpretation” was necessary, or tolerated.
So, if one must or “should” believe only the teachings, which have evidence to support them, where does that leave the central assertion of the Catholic faith: “Jesus is God”? If the different “miracles” allegedly performed by Jesus cannot be substantiated with evidence outside the Bible, then you have no evidence. Of course I am always astonished about dragging in the ancient past. Jesus is supposed to be alive today. Let’s see the evidence for his current existence.
Prior to the printing press there was little need for interpretation as no one had a Bible. Once the Bible was in circulation and disputes arose interpretation became necessary. If you walk into a Catholic library you will find a hoard of books on Scripture, and from the advent of the internet there is a hoard of authoritative sources that can be accessed online. For this reason I fail to see how it can be said the Church should spend time sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Lots of things were believed years ago that are not believed today. Spontaneous generation theory is one of them. Should we point the finger at scientists and say, ‘Ha Ha look what you believed years ago?’ Should we relegate ancient historical texts to the ranks of ‘not evidence’ on the ground their interpretations leave something to be desired?
If you say there is no evidence for the miracles Jesus performed outside the Bible, I would say your out of touch with contemporary developments. Recently there have been quite a number of authoritative documentaries on topics such as the miracles of the Bible.
I watched one recently about Jesus. Much evidence was presented outside the Bible by experts in - among other things - history and and archaeology.
B
Bradski
Guest
Of course not. And I’m not suggesting that all Catholics believe that that specific account would prove it. I’ve only posted that to show how easy it is, even with just a few comments between 3 or 4 people, for a simple comment to develop a life of its own and move from ‘someone said’ to ‘it’s a fact’.
Add a few score or even a few hundred iterations over many years with zero way to check on the accuracy of what you are being told (no Google or even written records available) and by the time you get a few of the lads to Nicaea to discuss the divinity of Jesus, someone is going to memtion that it was a fact that he performed miracles.
It’s now a given in any case for many people. A cast iron fact. I mean, why would people lie about it…
M
minkymurph
Guest
The message of the Gospel was initially handed on through word of mouth, and did develop a life of it’s own. It is a fact many different views existed at the time. Miracles would have been a factor in the equation. None of this can be denied.
The, ‘Why would people lie about it’ argument does not hold any water to an atheist - and they have a point. But why would anyone have said anything about Jesus at all let alone write so much about him? And why centuries later does the person of Jesus continue generate such interest and controversy?
What was so significant about Jesus? Why him?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Good for you for knowing about the Urban Dictionary!
Also, I think you should know about run-on sentences. A little bit of 4th grade English goes a long way.
#justsayin
- Status