A Challenge for Believers in God.

reply to post by Rustami


So Jesus suffered because it says Jesus suffered, and that somehow makes him the Messiah? Can you show me something other then NT scripture that backs this up?

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by Rustami

 

So Jesus suffered because it says Jesus suffered, and that somehow makes him the Messiah? Can you show me something other then NT scripture that backs this up?

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by Rustami


some very specific good ones have already been posted by others but here are a few more I find relative or interesting to your request in some way also as a really good help you may want to look into "Christ", "resurrection" and "making one new man out of two", sorry did'nt get back quicker

So I came to Jerusalem, and was there three days. And I arose in the night, I and some few men with me; neither told I any man what my God had put in my heart to do at Jerusalem: neither was there any beast with me, save the beast that I rode upon..Then I went on to the gate of the fountain, and to the king's pool: but there was no place for the beast that was under me to pass.
Nehemiah2

O earth, cover not thou my blood, and let my cry have no place. Also now, behold, my witness is in heaven, and my record is on high.
Job16

“Oh, that my words were written!
Oh, that they were inscribed in a book!
That they were engraved on a rock
With an iron pen and lead, forever!
For I know that my Redeemer lives,
And He shall stand at last on the earth;
And after my skin is destroyed, this I know,
That in my flesh I shall see God,
Whom I shall see for myself,
And my eyes shall behold, and not another.
Job19

And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel
Isaiah8

Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength?
63

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
9

“ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
11

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
42

He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
2Samuel7

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
Psalm2

Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
Exodus23

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

What about immoral acts? It's not hard to think of examples whereby immoral acts are carried out by someone who thinks they have a "divine" warrant, by someone who thinks they have Holy permission.

edit on 6-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

There is not a single moral act that distinguishes one man/woman from another.


ISA 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.


On the flip side, there is one immoral act that does distinguish itself from all others.


MK 3:28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

HEB 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

2PE 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

What about immoral acts? It's not hard to think of examples whereby immoral acts are carried out by someone who thinks they have a "divine" warrant, by someone who thinks they have Holy permission.

edit on 6-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

There is not a single moral act that distinguishes one man/woman from another.


ISA 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.


On the flip side, there is one immoral act that does distinguish itself from all others.


MK 3:28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

HEB 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

2PE 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

I will repeat a post I wrote at the start of this thread:

["I'm afraid, that believers soon will be claiming, that 'moral' only can be defined correctly on THEIR premises.

It would thus be 'immoral' to deny a blood-sacrifice craving 'god' his number of slaughtered animals, children and virgins (remember that the OT 'god' actually wanted blood sprinkled in his temple), just as it's 'immoral' to deny whatever insane sexual norms some contemporary christians try to impose on mankind.

It shall be fun to see the theist semantic dodgings once again, when they turn up."]

You are, as is common amongst elitist christians, relying on circle-arguments. In this case one level upgraded, by using your own tailored premises as an argument.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

What about immoral acts? It's not hard to think of examples whereby immoral acts are carried out by someone who thinks they have a "divine" warrant, by someone who thinks they have Holy permission.

edit on 6-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

There is not a single moral act that distinguishes one man/woman from another.


ISA 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.


On the flip side, there is one immoral act that does distinguish itself from all others.


MK 3:28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

HEB 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

2PE 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

I will repeat a post I wrote at the start of this thread:

["I'm afraid, that believers soon will be claiming, that 'moral' only can be defined correctly on THEIR premises.

It would thus be 'immoral' to deny a blood-sacrifice craving 'god' his number of slaughtered animals, children and virgins (remember that the OT 'god' actually wanted blood sprinkled in his temple), just as it's 'immoral' to deny whatever insane sexual norms some contemporary christians try to impose on mankind.

It shall be fun to see the theist semantic dodgings once again, when they turn up."]

You are, as is common amongst elitist christians, relying on circle-arguments. In this case one level upgraded, by using your own tailored premises as an argument.

How do you gauge your moral compass?

How is my opinion circular?

Is it circular because I believe the bible is the truth and I am convinced of Jesus' teachings?

If so, then I am guilty. I believe that his ways are higher than my ways.

MK 7:20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean.' "

reply to post by XplanetX


You wrote:

["How do you gauge your moral compass?"]

I rely on utilitarian philosophy. Just as a friendley suggestion, try it sometime. Imo it's superior to what you use. E.g. do I never have to worry about what other (consenting) people do with their genitalia, something which many christians are obessesively interested in.

Quote: ["How is my opinion circular?"]

Moral values are what you define them to be. That way even noses can be immoral.

Quote: ["Is it circular because I believe the bible is the truth and I am convinced of Jesus' teachings?"]

'Faith' does per definition not need proof, validation or evidence. It's simply an individual, subjective choice, legitimate as a private decission. When any claim is brought up in a public context, it's functional to have some common reference-points as 'measure-tapes' for 'truth' etc. In such a public context a circle-argument (which includes self-proclaimed 'absolute' premises) is worthless.

Which is why christian elitists often end in: "Yes, no, yes, no, yes..." debates.

Quote: [" If so, then I am guilty. I believe that his ways are higher than my ways."]

As long as this doesn't interfere with other peoples' lives..may it give you, what you seek or need.

Quote: ["MK 7:20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean.' "]

Generally and as a principle, egalitarian secular law handles this better for society as a whole.

reply to post by XplanetX

There is not a single moral act that distinguishes one man/woman from another.

ISA 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away

Isaiah goes on to say, two verses later:

Yet, Lord, you are our father.
We are the clay, and you are our potter;
we are all the product of your labor.
Lord, do not be too angry!

Looking as if he is actually blaming the Lord for them being that way, and that He should save them despite being otherwise unworthy. So it seems that your argument is that there is no need for morality.

reply to post by XplanetX

Is it circular because I believe the bible is the truth and I am convinced of Jesus' teachings?

If so, then I am guilty. I believe that his ways are higher than my ways.

MK 7:20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean.' "

You are quoting from Isaiah 55 talking about the lord calling all the people of the world to ". . .abandon their lifestyle
and sinful people their plans."
"My ways and My plans", of the Lord, is a plan for the redemption of mankind, which is better than people not having a plan and remaining in their sinfulness.
So God is not setting Himself high above us and laughing at us and pointing out how we can never be like Him.
God's plan for being good is better than a man-made plan for people to be good.

The quote of Jesus was comparing what could defile a person by coming out of them, to what does not defile a person by being taken into the body by way of eating food.
Jesus is not saying that it is not possible to ever not have all these defiling activities going on inside us.

Originally posted by bogomil
Generally and as a principle, egalitarian secular law handles this better for society as a whole.

Please explain what these laws are and provide an example of where this law is effective.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil
Generally and as a principle, egalitarian secular law handles this better for society as a whole.

Please explain what these laws are and provide an example of where this law is effective.

Here are a couple, with the basic principles of a societal balance between freedom and responsibilty as guideline:


1/ We can't have the 'child molesterer's liberation army' around with special privileges. The recent scandals of various churches in that connection is probably not a statistical over-representation of the clergy as such. But the HANDLING of it was extra-parliamentary, through the hush-up tactics used.

2/ There have for app. a thousand years been bad blood between western christianity and the eastern orthodox christianity. One of the initial official excuses eventually centered around the use of leavened vs. unleavened bread.

Similarly some religionists are vegetarians, others kosher, some must pray 5 times a day, some are passive 'slaves of 'god' and MUST do something about homosexuality, some wear spaghetti-strainers on their head as a religious symbol etc. All these differences must be settled on as neutral grounds as possible, i.e. egalitarian principles. Maybe someone will come up with a better idea later for preventing mad wanna-be ideological fascists from establising totalitarian states, but for the duration egalitarian principles as expressed in constitutional systems are the most functional.

3/ The control of public mass-media, and it's possible (mis)use for inductrination purposes. Free speech must have outlets, so self-proclaimed totalitarian authority won't have a monopoly in a zombification-process. I doubt if any christians would have accepted such a media-monopoly as existed in former Sovjet.

Similarly non-believers don't want a monopoly of 'christian values' re-introduced (and christians are boringly and insistingly claiming that regularly).

Access to media must be egalitarian also.



I'm a bit surprised of this request for basic political philosophy. I would have believed everybody to be familiar with it.

Originally posted by bogomil
basic political philosophy. I would have believed everybody to be familiar with it.

Ahhh man, I thought you were talking about some "real laws". All your talking is philosophy, so I guess what your saying is that we should exchange all religions and laws to those that only come from a philosophical stand point . Like I've always said, it will never happen.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil
basic political philosophy. I would have believed everybody to be familiar with it.

Ahhh man, I thought you were talking about some "real laws". All your talking is philosophy, so I guess what your saying is that we should exchange all religions and laws to those that only come from a philosophical stand point

. Like I've always said, it will never happen.

All the 'philosophy' has manifested in very specific laws. Get a law-book or the constitution of the country you live in and you can find any amount of applied 'real laws'.

Shall I wait for a semantic: "But you didn't say that the first time"? Or can we continue without rhetoric?