I opened this thread for the following reason.
I want to discuss the issues without coming from a Christian stand point, or recieving name calling and negatisim from the opposte.

So if Drew or whoever wishes to bring up an issue, feel free.

Lets make a rule in this thread that the Bible cannot be used as a reason to prove a point made.

I accept that once a person has accepted to be a christian then the Bible does become a large focus, but it's only a proof after you become a Christian not prior.

Also let me say that I have nothing against christianity per say. As a set of teachings it holds many points of great wisdom. I also tend to believe that there is a force or a God behind things. I do not know exactly what that is & don't feel any need at all to define it in human terms, but life tends to suggest that there is more to things than meets the eye.

What I do not agree with at all is the concept that one religion is exclusively right & is the only path, all other paths leading to eternal suffering.

Jere - you believe in some quite distinct & very specific things & you have stated you believe them 100%. Things like all muslims are going to hell if they don't convert as one example.

What evidence (& it can be personal evidence) do you have, not that a god - christian or otherwise exists, but what evidence do you have (that satisfies you personally) that your beliefs are exclusively correct and the only path?

Originally posted by DrewM
Lets make a rule in this thread that the Bible cannot be used as a reason to prove a point made.

K, that's fine.

Originally posted by DrewM
I accept that once a person has accepted to be a christian then the Bible does become a large focus, but it's only a proof after you become a Christian not prior.

A Bible should already be a focal point for anyone trying to become a Christian. It is important for one to know how Jesus lived, in order to strive to live like him.

Originally posted by DrewM
Also let me say that I have nothing against christianity per say. As a set of teachings it holds many points of great wisdom. I also tend to believe that there is a force or a God behind things. I do not know exactly what that is & don't feel any need at all to define it in human terms, but life tends to suggest that there is more to things than meets the eye.

I agree.

Originally posted by DrewM
What I do not agree with at all is the concept that one religion is exclusively right & is the only path, all other paths leading to eternal suffering.

One religion is NOT esclusively right. If Jesus is your savior it doesnt matter what religion your in. That said, I think the lord makes for those who have not been born or met with the opportunities of hearing his gospel spread.

Originally posted by DrewM
Jere - you believe in some quite distinct & very specific things & you have stated you believe them 100%. Things like all muslims are going to hell if they don't convert as one example.

Not exactly. I may have said something to the extent of that, but if you read above you get a better understanding of what I believe.

Originally posted by DrewM
What evidence (& it can be personal evidence) do you have, not that a god - christian or otherwise exists, but what evidence do you have (that satisfies you personally) that your beliefs are exclusively correct and the only path?

I have no personal expeirences where I know that each and everything Christiany or a certain domination teaches is valid and true to God. I have felt the prescense of Christ and the holy spirit. I have seen people speak in tounges and shout. I have daily talks with the lord, and I am confident and satisified that h is providing in my life.

I would just like to make something clear before I post anything.

I believe in Jesus... as a very wise and incredible prophet. I believe that he is a good role model. I don't believe, though, that he is the son of god since my perception of god is different.

I think it is pretty much accepted that Jesus was a real person. Due to the historical data collected about his life. Also the many religions that accept and believe that he lived (Christians, jews, muslims and some other religions). Christians are the only ones that believe he was the son of god. Most other religions believe he was a prophit.

Jere, I have to give you credit I was laughing my arse off when I saw the title of this thread:D

Echo, even though I believe like you that Jesus could have been real I still have not seen one shred of evidence. Take the time period and how folks minds work. There was no TV radio etc... so they would use stories for entertainment, the bigger the line of crap the more interesting the story. If Jesus was so true and holy why did it take a power head to get his story out in the year 326? Maybe because someone needed a bigger and better line of poop to get more power.

Drew, I also think you have something about an unknown power. I don't know if you remember the thread about science and God. I feel that true science and God would have to be one in the same?

There is no evidence for Jesus outside the bible. He reportedly lived during a time when self-professed messiahs were two-a-penny. Perhaps he is an almagamation of several prophets mixed in with a liberal dash of the greek god Dionysus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#Influence_on_Christianity) and others.

I see no reason to believe a specific individual called Jesus actually existed.

Theyre actually a few examples of possible historical documents that could show the possibility of Christ's life.

The following was taken from a site:

A. Tacitus

We possess at least the testimony of Tacitus (A.D. 54-119) for the statements that the Founder of the Christian religion, a deadly superstition in the eyes of the Romans, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius; that His religion, though suppressed for a time, broke forth again not only throughout Judea where it had originated, but even in Rome, the conflux of all the streams of wickness and shamelessness; furthermore, that Nero had diverted from himself the suspicion of the burning of Rome by charging the Christians with the crime; that these latter were not guilty of arson, though they deserved their fate on account of their universal misanthropy. Tacitus, moreover, describes some of the horrible torments to which Nero subjected the Christians (Ann., XV, xliv). The Roman writer confounds the Christians with the Jews, considering them as a especially abject Jewish sect; how little he investigated the historical truth of even the Jewish records may be inferred from the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of he Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, iv).

B. Suetonius

Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv). In his life of Nero he regards that emperor as a public benefactor on account of his severe treatment of the Christians: "Multa sub eo et animadversa severe, et coercita, nec minus instituta . . . . afflicti Christiani, genus hominum superstitious novae et maleficae" (Nero, xvi). The Roman writer does not understand that the Jewish troubles arose from the Jewish antagonism to the Messianic character of Jesus Christ and to the rights of the Christian Church.

C. Pliny the Younger

Of greater importance is the letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (about A.D. 61-115), in which the Governor of Bithynia consults his imperial majesty as to how to deal with the Christians living within his jurisdiction. On the one hand, their lives were confessedly innocent; no crime could be proved against them excepting their Christian belief, which appeared to the Roman as an extravagant and perverse superstition. On the other hand, the Christians could not be shaken in their allegiance to Christ, Whom they celebrated as their God in their early morning meetings (Ep., X, 97, 98). Christianity here appears no longer as a religion of criminals, as it does in the texts of Tacitus and Suetonius; Pliny acknowledges the high moral principles of the Christians, admires their constancy in the Faith (pervicacia et inflexibilis obstinatio), which he appears to trace back to their worship of Christ (carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere).

D. Other pagan writers

The remaining pagan witnesses are of less importance: In the second century Lucian sneered at Christ and the Christians, as he scoffed at the pagan gods. He alludes to Christ's death on the Cross, to His miracles, to the mutual love prevailing among the Christians ("Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pereg"). There are also alleged allusions to Christ in Numenius (Origen, "Contra Cels", IV, 51), to His parables in Galerius, to the earthquake at the Crucifixion in Phlegon ( Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 14). Before the end of the second century, the logos alethes of Celsus, as quoted by Origen (Contra Cels., passim), testifies that at that time the facts related in the Gospels were generally accepted as historically true. However scanty the pagan sources of the life of Christ may be, they bear at least testimony to His existence, to His miracles, His parables, His claim to Divine worship, His death on the Cross, and to the more striking characteristics of His religion.

II. JEWISH SOURCES

A. Philo

Philo, who dies after A.D. 40, is mainly important for the light he throws on certain modes of thought and phraseology found again in some of the Apostles. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, iv) indeed preserves a legend that Philo had met St. Peter in Rome during his mission to the Emperor Caius; moreover, that in his work on the contemplative life he describes the life of the Christian Church in Alexandria founded by St. Mark, rather than that of the Essenes and Therapeutae. But it is hardly probable that Philo had heard enough of Christ and His followers to give an historical foundation to the foregoing legends.

B. Josephus

The earlist non-Christian writer who refers Christ is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus; born A.D. 37, he was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died in Rome A.D. 94. Two passages in his "Antiquities" which confirm two facts of the inspired Christian records are not disputed. In the one he reports the murder of "John called Baptist" by Herod (Ant., XVIII, v, 2), describing also John's character and work; in the other (Ant., XX, ix, 1) he disappoves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananus against "James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ." It is antecedently probable that a writer so well informed as Josephus, must have been well acquainted too with the doctrine and the history of Jesus Christ. Seeing, also, that he records events of minor importance in the history of the Jews, it would be surprising if he were to keep silence about Jesus Christ. Consideration for the priests and Pharisees did not prevent him from mentioning the judicial murders of John the Baptist and the Apostle James; his endeavour to find the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies in Vespasian did not induce him to pass in silence over several Jewish sects, though their tenets appear to be inconsistent with the Vespasian claims. One naturally expects, therefore, a notice about Jesus Christ in Josephus. Antiquities XVIII, iii, 3, seems to satisfy this expectation:

About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.

A testimony so important as the foregoing could not escape the work of the critics. Their conclusions may be reduced to three headings: those who consider the passage wholly spurious; those who consider it to be wholly authentic; and those who consider it to be a little of each.

Those who regard the passage as spurious

First, there are those who consider the whole passage as spurious. The principal reasons for this view appear to be the following:

* Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize the Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibilities;
* the above cited passage from Josephus is said to be unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers;
* its very place in the Josephan text is uncertain, since Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, vi) must have found it before the notices concerning Pilate, while it now stands after them.

But the spuriousness of the disputed Josephan passage does not imply the historian's ignorance of the facts connected with Jesus Christ. Josephus's report of his own juvenile precocity before the Jewish teachers (Vit., 2) reminds one of the story of Christ's stay in the Temple at the age of twelve; the description of his shipwreck on his journey to Rome (Vit., 3) recalls St. Paul's shipwreck as told in the Acts; finally his arbitrary introduction of a deceit practised by the priests of Isis on a Roman lady, after the chapter containing his supposed allusion to Jesus, shows a disposition to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and to prepare the falsehoods embodied in the later Jewish writings.

Those who regard the passage as authentic, with some spurious additions

A second class of critics do not regard the whole of Josephus's testimony concerning Christ as spurious but they maintain the interpolation of parts included above in parenthesis. The reasons assigned for this opinion may be reduced to the following two:

* Josephus must have mentioned Jesus, but he cannot have recognized Him as the Christ; hence part of our present Josephan text must be genuine, part must be interpolated.
* Again, the same conclusion follows from the fact that Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with our present reading; for, according to the great Alexandrian doctor, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47).

Whatever force these two arguments have is lost by the fact that Josephus did not write for the Jews but for the Romans; consequently, when he says, "This was the Christ", he does not necessarily imply that Jesus was the Christ considered by the Romans as the founder of the Christian religion.

Those who consider it to be completely genuine

The third class of scholars believe that the whole passage concerning Jesus, as it is found today in Josephus, is genuine. The main arguments for the genuineness of the Josephan passage are the following:

* First, all codices or manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way.
* Second, it is true that neither Tertullian nor St. Justin makes use of Josephus's passage concerning Jesus; but this silence is probably due to the contempt with which the contemporary Jews regarded Josephus, and to the relatively little authority he had among the Roman readers. Writers of the age of Tertullian and Justin could appeal to living witnesses of the Apostolic tradition.
* Third, Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl"., I, xi; cf. "Dem. Ev.", III, v) Sozomen (Hist. Eccl., I, i), Niceph. (Hist. Eccl., I, 39), Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. IV, 225), St. Jerome (catal.script. eccles. xiii), Ambrose, Cassiodorus, etc., appeal to the testimony of Josephus; there must have been no doubt as to its authenticity at the time of these illustrious writers.
* Fourth, the complete silence of Josephus as to Jesus would have been a more eloquent testimony than we possess in his present text; this latter contains no statement incompatible with its Josephan authorship: the Roman reader needed the information that Jesus was the Christ, or the founder of the Christian religion; the wonderful works of Jesus and His Resurrection from the dead were so incessantly urged by the Christians that without these attributes the Josephan Jesus would hardly have been acknowledged as the founder of Christianity.

All this does not necessarily imply that Josephus regarded Jesus as the Jewish Messias; but, even if he had been convinced of His Messiahship, it does not follow that he would have become a Christian. A number of posssible subterfuges might have supplied the Jewish historian with apparently sufficient reasons for not embracing Christianity.

C. Other Jewish Sources

The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32). The father's name is Panthera, a common soldier (Gemara "Sanhedrin", viii; "Schabbath", xii, cf. Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum", I, 109; Schottgen, "Horae Hebraicae", II, 696; Buxtorf, "Lex. Chald.", Basle, 1639, 1459, Huldreich, "Sepher toledhoth yeshua hannaceri", Leyden, 1705). The last work in its final edition did not appear before the thirteenth century, so that it could give the Panthera myth in its most advanced form. Rosch is of opinion that the myth did not begin before the end of the first century.

The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf. "Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre.

III. CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Among the Christian sources of the life of Jesus we need hardly mention the so called Agrapha and Apocrypha. For whether the Agrapha contain Logia of Jesus, or refer to incidents in His life, they are either highly uncertain or present only variations of the Gospel story. The chief value of the Apocrypha consists in their showing the infinite superiority of the Inspired Writings by contrasting the coarse and erroneous productions of the human mind with the simple and sublime truths written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Among the Sacred Books of the New Testament, it is especially the four Gospels and the four great Epistles of St. Paul that are of the highest importance for the construction of the life of Jesus.

The four great Pauline Epistles (Romans, Galatians, and First and Second Corinthinas) can hardly be overestimated by the student of Christ's life; they have at times been called the "fifth gospel"; their authenticity has never been assailed by serious critics; their testimony is also earlier than that of the Gospels, at least most of the Gospels; it is the more valuable because it is incidental and undesigned; it is the testimony of a highly intellectual and cultured writer, who had been the greatest enemy of Jesus, who writes within twenty-five years of the events which he relates. At the same time, these four great Epistles bear witness to all the most important facts in the life of Christ: His Davidic dscent, His poverty, His Messiahship, His moral teaching, His preaching of the kingdom of God, His calling of the apostles, His miraculous power, His claims to be God, His betrayal, His institution of the Holy Eucharist, His passion, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, His repeated appearances (Romans 1:3-4; 5:11; 8:2-3; 8:32; 9:5; 15:8; Galatians 2:17; 3:13; 4:4; 5:21; First Corinthians 6:9; 13:4; etc.). However important the four great Epistles may be, the gospels are still more so. Not that any one of them offers a complete biography of Jesus, but they account for the origin of Christianity by the life of its Founder. Questions like the authenticity of the Gospels, the relation between the Synoptic Gospels, and the Fourth, the Synoptic problem, must be studied in the articles referring to these respective subjects.

Thanks jerejere that's helpful. Do you have the url?

I'm not saying "Jesus did not exist" merely that we do not know either way. I do think it is entirely possible. The debate is well above my personal knowledge of christian history although, to play devil's advocate, I cannot help but notice the above are testimonies from after Jesus's alleged life and death - just like the NT itself.

Originally posted by Blob
Thanks jerejere that's helpful. Do you have the url?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm


Originally posted by Blob
I'm not saying "Jesus did not exist" merely that we do not know either way. I do think it is entirely possible. The debate is well above my personal knowledge of christian history although, to play devil's advocate, I cannot help but notice the above are testimonies from after Jesus's alleged life and death - just like the NT itself.

That's probably true. You have to think though...in most cases throughout history, historical figures become more famous as time goes forward....and there were much fewer ways of recording what was happing during the present --the further back you go.

Thanks for the link.

A Catholic site! With a sig like yours??? ;)

Ha! I didnt really pay attention to the website as compared to just the information, but hey, whatever works. lol.

Jesus probably did exist, there is enough historical record to suggest that he was real. Jesus being God though is a stretch of the imagination.

Or perhaps a stretch of faith.

What is faith?

I've heard several times a concept of blind faith - ie simply believe in something for no good reason.

Faith is a miss-used concept I believe, faith is not simply believing in something by suspending all judgement. That is not possible unless a persons ability to judge is very low of course.

What is your opinion of Faith Jere?

I was going to ask the same thing in a deferent way.

We call people who believe in things that can't be proved "superstitious". One could say that they have FAITH that breaking a mirror will bring them bad luck. Believing something can very often make it happen in ones mind. If I have faith that I will have bad luck because I break a mirror, I will start to notice everything bad that happens to me, I will pay attention to it and it will be on the top of my mind. Thus creating my own reality out of my faith and strengthening the imprinting on me that my faith was real and right.

Faith in something can affect outlook, attitude, lifestyle, emotion, actions, etc. Peoples whose life’s are in shambles will turn to religion and then assert that it was their "faith" that changed their life. When in reality it wasn't what they were believing that changed their life, it was their responses around that belief that changed their life.

Converts to every religion will tell you of the great differences their conversion has made in their life. They are all absolutely positive that they have found the truth. They will state emphatically that they are right and that their god is real.

Since this happens in every religion one can concur that it isn't the particular belief that has the impact on the person, it is the effects of having a belief.

Exactly.

Human experience proves that any specific experience that one person assigns to a religious belief - is the same for another person with a different religious belief, therefore this proves that no religion is absolutely the only path. The only plausible proof for one religion to be exclusively right is if that religion had experiences that were unique to followers of that religion. This is not the case.

That doesn't mean that christianity is all wrong, but it does mean that the statement "the only way to god is via Jesus" is absolutely incorrect and there is not a single argument that can support it. All belief must be based on some kind of personal experience or it is just believing what somebody else told you. When that personal experience is common to all religions then you can reject any specific religion as being the only path.

Given that, my next question Jere is - What personal experience do you have / have had, that is specific only to christianity and therefore leads you to the 100% firm conclusion that christianity is the only correct path?

Drew,

I dont have any experiences that I can point out and just say, "Well...here you go. Christianity proven."

My experiences are mostly internal. I have felt, what I believe, to be the holy spirit within me. I am satisified that my prayers have been answered to a degree that I can be just that--satisfyed.

I understand.

So, do you agree that - given that :

A) You are basing your faith on a personal experience, feelings, answered prayer etc. A very valid reason.

B) This experience is not specific to christianity or any religion - it is experienced by all religions and people with no religion at all.

Therefore, is it reasonable to conclude that

C) There is an unseen force, but any one experience of that force can not be taken as proof that a specific religious belief set is exclusively correct?

D) Given acceptance of (C) - it is reasonable then to dismiss any teachings based upon exclusive correctness - ie all non believers will go to hell, the only path is Jesus, etc etc

Originally posted by DrewM
I understand.

So, do you agree that - given that :

A) You are basing your faith on a personal experience, feelings, answered prayer etc. A very valid reason.

B) This experience is not specific to christianity or any religion - it is experienced by all religions and people with no religion at all.

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. I said I believe to have felt the spirit of God within me, and working through me. What feeling would someone with no religion expeirence that would be comparable?

Originally posted by DrewM
Therefore, is it reasonable to conclude that

C) There is an unseen force, but any one experience of that force can not be taken as proof that a specific religious belief set is exclusively correct?

D) Given acceptance of (C) - it is reasonable then to dismiss any teachings based upon exclusive correctness - ie all non believers will go to hell, the only path is Jesus, etc etc


It cannot be proven, no. But that in no way means you can dismiss any teachings of Christ or of the Bible.

Jere - read what I am saying. I am not suggesting that you reject the Bible. Address each point & tell me which you do not agree with and tell me why you don't agree.

Muslims, Jews etc etc all feel the presence of God, have answered prayer etc. So do non religious people.

I absolutely agree. God answers prayers from people of all religions and levels of faith and belief.

In the same manner, he loves us all.

So, by that admission, how can you be 100% certain that christianity is the sole and only path to god?

Lets say there are 2 people that are poor as heck they each go to the same local store and buy a lottery ticket. One guy wins the whole thing he does not believe in Christ and did not pray for money. The other guy never wins but prays every day, is this Gods unanswered prayer? Now switch this around and I would but money on it that the Christian would say Christ gave me this money {chance at being rich} through prayer. He would also tell the other non-believer that if he had faith he could win.

Originally posted by DrewM
So, by that admission, how can you be 100% certain that christianity is the sole and only path to god?

Thats not what Im saying, Drew. Christiany is not the only way to God--it's the only way to Heaven. Salvation which can only be recieved through recieving Christ as your personal savior and lord will get you to BE with God--in heaven.

Originally posted by mad dog
Lets say there are 2 people that are poor as heck they each go to the same local store and buy a lottery ticket. One guy wins the whole thing he does not believe in Christ and did not pray for money. The other guy never wins but prays every day, is this Gods unanswered prayer? Now switch this around and I would but money on it that the Christian would say Christ gave me this money {chance at being rich} through prayer. He would also tell the other non-believer that if he had faith he could win.

And I almost guarantee that if you talk to a true child of Christ you would lose that bet hands down. God does not deny people rewards on Earth--soley because they are not living a life for him. God is still the father of us all, and loves us as such.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
God is still the father of us all, and loves us as such.

I thought this was supposed to be an OPEN MINDED thread. It seems to me that you are taking a hard line and don't seem open to discuss other posibilities.

Originally posted by Echo2
I thought this was supposed to be an OPEN MINDED thread. It seems to me that you are taking a hard line and don't seem open to discuss other posibilities.

It's an open minded thread, not a one sided one.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Thats not what Im saying, Drew. Christiany is not the only way to God--it's the only way to Heaven. Salvation which can only be recieved through recieving Christ as your personal savior and lord will get you to BE with God--in heaven.

But Jere , now you are going off the track. I presented you with some very logical & reasonable debate and you have ignored it & are back to simply quoting religious statements. Although you started with intent for this to be an open minded thread - I do not see any difference in your responses here than in any other thread.

Let's get back to actually debating.

You have brung up that point several times Drew. "How can you be 100%" and I have clearly said, I cant. I have no proveable evidence to show you, so therefore, I have to go on faith.

Yes but you are still avoiding the core of the discussion. I am sure you are not doing it on purpose.

This is an analysis of why you believe something. You agreed to set aside preconcieved notions and examine it properly. So far you have not.

I'm not asking you for hard evidence - this is a mental exercise to discover your personal logic behind your chosen set of beliefs. I'm interested in your personal evidence.

I have shown you a very credible proof that highlights your 100% certainty to be flawed. To say - well I go on faith is somewhat meaningless & to all intent a pure avoidance. There has to be some reasoning behind any personal decision.

I think what Drew is asking you is...What are the thought process's that you went through to come to the concludion that your life should follow a faith based path? How did you determin that faith was to be such an intragal part of your life? What reasoning did you use to determine your beliefs? He's not looking for bible quotes, he is trying to find out how and why you made this choice.

Once again--I have no tangibles that I can present to even tell you why I have faith. I just do.

I am not trying to avoid the question because that IS the answer.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Once again--I have no tangibles that I can present to even tell you why I have faith. I just do.

I am not trying to avoid the question because that IS the answer.

Doesn't it make you ponder just a little bit that you are saying you have a belief but you have absolutely no clue why you have it?

I've proven to you that your experiences (feelings, answered prayer etc) cannot prove that your path is exclusively correct.

I dunno, I know you are pretty young & that is to some degree a valid reason for not really thinking things thru in any detail or evaluating things in a rational fashion. You are a pretty smart kid I believe, but all the same 17 is very young. Perhaps in 10 years you will be in a different place.

I would think at your age keeping the door slightly open to an open mind would be quite the healthy thing to do. You seem to have made up your mind on something, yet you can't really put into any words what you have based that upon and then slammed the door shut on any kind of rational thought. You know rationale thought is not an evil thing!

There is a well documented psychology behind hardened religious belief - it would be worth your time to at least google it & see if any of those patterns fit, as hard as that may be. Shaking the edifice is healthy even if it is scary.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Once again--I have no tangibles that I can present to even tell you why I have faith. I just do.

I am not trying to avoid the question because that IS the answer. I have a question for you jerejere. Is your faith that your god exists; or that your god loves you?

It seems to me it would be quite easy for people to believe in a creator god without resorting to faith. A lot of religious people simply cannot imagine for a second how the universe, life, morality and consciousness could exist without it. Therefore they feel they have evidence and reason, rather than faith, to believe.

Yet I cannot see how you can possibly believe your god is loving and caring without faith. All the evidence is that god is a malign tormenter - look at all the suffering and misery in the world. It's more than just the plight of mankind. At any given moment thousands or maybe millions of animals are being eaten alive by predators, or suffering illness they can do nothing about or watching their babies die. It cannot be reasonably argued that god is loving, therefore it must take faith.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by DrewM
Doesn't it make you ponder just a little bit that you are saying you have a belief but you have absolutely no clue why you have it?

I'm not saying that at all, Drew. I have had personal expeirences which I believe was God working through me. It does make me wonder...that I have no tangible evidence. I'll give you that.

Originally posted by DrewM
I've proven to you that your experiences (feelings, answered prayer etc) cannot prove that your path is exclusively correct.

And I have agreed. It doesnt prove it.

Originally posted by DrewM
I dunno, I know you are pretty young & that is to some degree a valid reason for not really thinking things thru in any detail or evaluating things in a rational fashion. You are a pretty smart kid I believe, but all the same 17 is very young. Perhaps in 10 years you will be in a different place.

I don't really consider my youth a factor in my decision, but who knows? Things change every day.

Originally posted by DrewM
I would think at your age keeping the door slightly open to an open mind would be quite the healthy thing to do. You seem to have made up your mind on something, yet you can't really put into any words what you have based that upon and then slammed the door shut on any kind of rational thought. You know rationale thought is not an evil thing!


Again, I agree. That's why I opened this thread.

Originally posted by DrewM
There is a well documented psychology behind hardened religious belief - it would be worth your time to at least goohose patterns fit, as hard as that may be. Shaking the edifice is healthy evegle it & see if any of tn if it is scary.

I'm sorry--I didnt quite follow that.

Originally posted by Blob
I have a question for you jerejere. Is your faith that your god exists; or that your god loves you?

I have faith in both God's existence and his love for both you and I.


Originally posted by Blob
It seems to me it would be quite easy for people to believe in a creator god without resorting to faith. A lot of religious people simply cannot imagine for a second how the universe, life, morality and consciousness could exist without it. Therefore they feel they have evidence and reason, rather than faith, to believe.

I agree. And I believe God is behind those things--but thats not a kind of proof that you can present to someone such as Drew or Echo, etc.

Originally posted by Blob
Yet I cannot see how you can possibly believe your god is loving and caring without faith. All the evidence is that god is a malign tormenter - look at all the suffering and misery in the world. It's more than just the plight of mankind. At any given moment thousands or maybe millions of animals are being eaten alive by predators, or suffering illness they can do nothing about or watching their babies die. It cannot be reasonably argued that god is loving, therefore it must take faith.


Are you a vegetarian, Blob?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I'm not saying that at all, Drew. I have had personal expeirences which I believe was God working through me. It does make me wonder...that I have no tangible evidence. I'll give you that.

And I have agreed. It doesnt prove it.

I don't really consider my youth a factor in my decision, but who knows? Things change every day.

Again, I agree. That's why I opened this thread.

I'm sorry--I didnt quite follow that.


It does appear that maybe your mind is not quite as closed as some of your past posts may have suggested.

I don't doubt your personal experiences, they are afterall personal to you and nobody can question them. Such experiences do not even seem unreasonable to me. I don't think you even need tangible evidence to back up a belief, it is a personal thing.

My sole & only point has been that such experiences are certainly not unique to christians. This by definition therefore precludes using that experience as any basis to believe that christianity is 100% correct, especially when it comes to items so significant as all non christ accepters will burn in hell. That belief is so significant that it requires a significant personal experience to back it up. It's not a belief that should be accepted lightly.

The dynamic is one of personal experience backing up what is already available (christianity because you live around christians in a country where christianity is the main white religion) then moving into that and accepting everything as valid, even though the original basis did not by any means indicate that christianity was the sole and only path. The original experience in reality only could back up a belief that an unseen force does seem to exist.

The last point in my previous post was related to the impact that being within a belief set creates psychologically. It's very common to have a strong sense of guilt and concern just by the simple act of questioning a rooted belief. This is human nature. Educating yourself on that well documented human response can only make you more able to take paths based on solid reasoning (backed up by personal experience of course) rather than a path simply to prevent the earth crumbling below your feet.

Education and wisdom is never a sin.

I have to say that I agree Drew.

My mind hasn't changed about my faith in God--or even Christ--but I will say my mind is a lot more open to what youve been saying, and it does make sense.

And I couldnt see how education and wisdowm should or could be a sin either.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I have faith in both God's existence and his love for both you and I.
...
I agree. And I believe God is behind those things--but thats not a kind of proof that you can present to someone such as Drew or Echo, etc.I think Drew believes in god. But I do not and, like Echo, I believe such "proof" points to an absence of any god. But if you think proof exists you surely do need not faith. This is something I find many christians have not thought through.
Are you a vegetarian, Blob? lol. No. I'm just pointing out that nature is cruel, painful and harsh. If it is a creation then one can only conclude the creator wished it that way. Not very loving IMO. Basically I am saying you must have faith god is loving because it sure doesn't look that way.

What do you think now I have clarified?

Originally posted by Blob
I think Drew believes in god. But I do not and, like Echo, I believe such "proof" points to an absence of any god. But if you think proof exists you surely do need not faith. This is something I find many christians have not thought through.
lol. No. I'm just pointing out that nature is cruel, painful and harsh. If it is a creation then one can only conclude the creator wished it that way. Not very loving IMO. Basically I am saying you must have faith god is loving because it sure doesn't look that way.

I don't necessarily agree that the harshness in nature is proof against God. I think God gave us animals with dominion over those animals, not the right to send them into slaughter and things like that.
I think the harshness in nature is an example of man's freewill gone wrong.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Once again--I have no tangibles that I can present to even tell you why I have faith. I just do.

I am not trying to avoid the question because that IS the answer.

Jere you and I have an entirely different set of beliefs. However, I think I know what you mean when you say "I just do". I have never, ever doubted God's existence. He is as real to me as the sky above my head and the earth below my feet. He speaks to me daily and I to him. Ever since I was a small child I had HIM, my friend, my buddy, my guide. When I was small I wondered why adults did not commune with him in the same way I did. I wondered how they could doubt His "realness".

Frankly, I no longer care. There are those who will "believe". There are those who will not.

I have questioned his "essence" and his "nature" many, many times but never his existence. How can one possibly explain that to another who does not believe He exists? It is not possible and it is an exercise in futility for both parties.

Why do you feel the constant need to explain or justify yourself? One believes in the existence of a greater power or one does not. It is that simple. It comes from within, not from without. If someone says you are a stupid, deluded person for your belief then fine, that is their definition. Who cares?


From the place where I come from, you and I are worlds and worlds apart in our belief system. I do not believe the same as you, yet once I did. Somehow we are the same, for we both believe what we can not see, what we can not physically hear, yet know daily. It is the whisper in the wind, the warmth on your face, the peace in your heart.

Embrace your peace.

A wonderful post, Sal. Thanks