Join Us Today!

Join our non-denominational community with 10,000+ members and more than 50,000 monthly visitors today. Engage in bible discussions, studies, prayer support and friendly fellowship.

Atheists can appreciate this site too.

Discussion in 'Introduction' started by Tusk Barnes, Nov 20, 2010.

  1. #21 Tusk Barnes, Nov 24, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2010
    Haha. Ludicrous? Or am I suggesting that I had a bigger imagination at one time than you might now?

    To be fair, I have yet to deny that Jesus called Christ actually existed. No need to put words in my mouth...but you bring up a good point. Why should I believe that Christ even existed?
  2. #22 Hona, Nov 24, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2010

    Dear brother in Christ

    I would not describe you as an atheist because the philosophic basis for the atheist involves a totally absurd universe. Carl Saga described the cosmos as all there is, all there was, and all there will ever be, and this statement became the flagship statement for the atheist around the world. However in the only book he ever wrote titled "Contact" which starred Jodie Foster, Sagan alludes to there having been some kind of orderer to the universe. After all Sagan was a NASA scientist who studied the cosmos and noticed that there was some kind of order in the cosmos, so much so he could send space vehicles into space and bring them back to earth again. He also drove to work and wrote ordered statements and thesis which also are only possible if there is order in the universe. Jean Paul Sartre shared this view despite making moral judgements on the world stage about the French occupation of Algeria. Anthony Flew the high priest of atheist said that atheism could no longer be considered a valid belief system because science showed us that there is order in the cosmos. These men were great atheist yet their observation of the cosmos seemed to contradict their beliefs on metaphysics at every point. Atheism after all, says that there is no order in the universe. Clearly they are wrong as I write this response to you in an ordered way so that you can read it and understand it in an ordered way.

    Also it seems to me that your faith is a strong faith with all the central tenets in the right places. God makes the revelation of Himself, and the recipient of that revelation, in such a way that love and truth are possibilities for us. Ever met an atheist who hated his wife or a Muslim? These people love their wives and children as much as I the Christian does, yet there is nothing inside their system to explain to them what love is. Despite their preference of belief system, they can love their families in the same way I love mine. This is how God made everyone and so this truth is true for everyone even if they don't know. In my opinion you are not backslidden, but rather you have questions that need answers that make sense to you and everyone else as opposed to the a priori applications given by most people.

    When I ask my children what love is, they go straight to Genesis 1:1 and apply the term 'Elohim", used for God which is only applied in the plural tension. In this Trinitarian concept, we have 3 distinct equal beings whose mutual reciprocal actions between themselves, represents a unity of 'thought' and 'will'. For example the Christian might say, God is love and they would be appealing to this Trinitarian concept in Genesis 1:1. How many Christian's would begin here in understanding anything about the bible? Very few indeed and so Christian's too have as many questions as the non-Christian. If Christian's struggle at this point, it follows that much that follows after will be problematic. Any belief system that attempts to begin minus a concept for thinking expressing beings like ourselves and our God, doesn't begin. Islam has a single entity deity concept. It seems an insurmountable task for Islam to exaplin how their deity could show them what love is or anything else relating to personality and its function. In essence the whole world behaves as if Christianity is true, but warrant an explanation from the Christian that makes sense to everyone and not just the Christian individual.

    I wish I could go on but I have other responsibilities.

    God Bless you my brother!:shade:
  3. Your the one who said you are an atheist. Do you understand what the term "atheist" means?

    Sorry but you can't have it both ways, it is impossible for you to have had a real relationship with Christ the Son of God if God doesn't exist. So once again you are the one here who is confused and misguided. Your not the first, many have difficulty recognizing the difference(s) between religion and a real relationship with Yahveh. You need to get this sorted out then you can move forward.
  4. #24 Tusk Barnes, Nov 25, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2010
    Ohhhh boy. I'm not trying to have it both ways. I don't need to. Of course I know what "atheist" means. I've already defined it in this tread, but I'll do it again. Being an atheist means I lack a belief in gods. Implicit in that statement, I would, of course, not believe that there was such a thing as a son (or a daughter, or a pet dog, or a will) of a god, because how could something that I don't believe exists have a son? That Jesus was the Son of God has yet to be demonstrated, because that God exists has yet to be demonstrated.

    And I certainly had not discounted the possibility that a guy named Jesus of Nazareth could have ever existed. You're again, putting words in my mouth. Having lived is one thing. Being the Son of God is entirely something else.

    But like I said, you bring up an interesting point. Why should I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, CALLED Christ, ever actually lived?

    Now, you've got the burden of proof on at least three intertwined claims. One that only one God, YHWH, exists. Two, that Jesus of Nazareth exists(or existed). And three, that this Jesus of Nazareth was actually the anointed Son of YHWH.

    If you've got information that I don't on the validity of your claims, I would love to hear it.
  5. #25 jiggyfly, Nov 25, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2010
    Then by your own words you are undoubtedly wrong about ever having a relationship with Jesus meaning you were never a christian in a true sense but rather only had a religious experience. Tis a huge difference. Now you can go on arguing and stay in denial, thats your choice, but remember this forum is called TalkJesus so if your not here to talk about Jesus in a positive light and attitude I suggest that you move on.

    Jesus is not only the only begotten Son of God, He is the only way to God, and this is by God's own design. As far as proof goes, I met Jesus personally many years ago and in turn He introduced me to His Father and HolySpirit. I have spent many many hours from day-to-day with them since and there are many on this site who have similar experiences as mine. I am a witness to Christ and whether you believe it or not has no effect on me or others it simply delays your own encounter with the King of Kings, Jesus the savior of all mankind. One day your eyes will see His glory and you will bow and confess allegiance to Him with all the rest of us.

    You made the comment earlier that you are agnostic, here's something to ponder. Have you ever seen a baby pigeon? I haven't but I don't doubt their existence. Do you believe that dinosaurs existed? Ever seen a live one? There is evidence of Yahveh's existence everywhere in creation.
  6. By my own words? Wrong about EVER having a relationship? Do you have any sense of time or past and present tense? I do not have a relationship with Jesus now. In the present. I had at least as much of a relationship with Jesus in the past as you. I believed back then just as you believe now. You and I are not so different. Only the time of our belief and our attitudes towards those we are asked to love is different. You, being callous and abrasive, say things like "you are undoubtedly wrong" without explaining yourself. While I have simply asked questions which no one has had the courtesy to answer.

    I know this it TalkJesus. So answer some questions about Jesus already!! I've been here asking, for sobbing out loud. Stop thinking you've got me cornered in a contradiction. You don't. Just answer the questions I have about your Jesus, or I'll try to find someone else who knows what they're talking about.

    That's great news, but it means nothing to someone who doesn't believe gods exist in the first place. So let's TalkJesus, man. I've been looking for truth. I've been asking the questions. No one has answered any of the questions yet. Tell me about this God and how you know He exists. Tell me about this Jesus, and how you know He was real. Tell me about all this evidence. Don't just tell me the evidence is everywhere. Tell me what it is.

    Ok, you met Him personally? Is he tall? What does He look like? Does He have an Aramaic accent? How has He stayed alive all these years? I thought they killed the guy.

    This is an ad populum appeal. It's a logical fallacy sort of along the lines of..."This many people can't be wrong." Well, I'll give it a try too. There are just over 4 billion other people whose experiences are completely different from yours. That many people can't be wrong...right?

    I don't want to delay the encounter! Tell me about him for Pete's sake. I came to Talk Jesus to talk about Jesus, but no one has answered any of my questions about Him.
  7. #27 jiggyfly, Nov 25, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2010
    My relationship with Christ is real and I don't doubt His existence, He lives in me.

    I suggest you watch your snide remarks and stop playing games if you want to stay here at TJ.

    What are the questions you have posted that haven't been answer by anyone?
  8. OK. My snide remarks are on watch. Apologies.

    My questions...

    What is your belief in God's existence based upon?

    What is your belief that Jesus of Nazareth existed based upon?

    What is you belief that Jesus of Nazareth was/is the Son of God, YHWH, based upon?

    Why did Jesus have to die?

    How do you have a personal relationship with a person who might have died almost 2000 years ago?

    How does this person live inside of you?

    To name a few.
  9. #29 KingdomSeeker, Nov 26, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2010
    So I hope that answered a bit of your question.
    Jesus bless you Tusk,Friend. Untill next time. -K.S
  10. My personal experiences with Him.

    When you refer to "Jesus of Nazareth" I assume you mean Jesus in the flesh. My belief is based on the historical writings about Him.

    My personal experiences with Him and the fact that His Father Yahveh and HolySpirit bear witness of Him(Jesus).

    Jesus didn't have to die. He did however choose to be obedient to His Father Yahveh and die in His fleshly body so that all things would be reconciled back to Yahveh through Jesus the Christ as according to Yahveh's plan.

    I don't, but I do have a personal relationship with Jesus the Christ who died in His fleshly body as recorded in several historical writings on a cross and then was raised from death and is now living and lives within every believer who has experienced what commonly called born again but more accurately referred to as born of the Spirit and is a supernatural phenomenon.

    By the power of Yahveh through HolySpirit, again, tis a supernatural phenomenon.
  11. I'm glad your experiences here have been mostly good :)
  12. You state to me that "God cannot want"? Why cannot a perfect spirit want? To want is not sin, it is not a sin to want salvation for the lost, to want the sick and hurting to be healed.. God "wants" of us because He gave us the choice to believe or not.. So think about this.. If He made us believe, then he would not want for our salvation.. It would already be.. But since He allowed us free will and choice, Is it not so that he would be of want, because it is us whom choice, and he would have to want, because He isn't controlling this decision, we are? !
  13. You all are being played and baited here----The above response is more than adequate for whats going on here.

  14. #34 Tusk Barnes, Nov 28, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2010

    You sound awfully Universalist, brother. I don't have a problem with it. However misinformed you are on atheism is no big deal. I rather like the idea that Jesus died for the sins of the world. Whether I believe it or not, IF it's true, than my sins (and yours, and everyone's) have been paid for. So I guess nobody has anything to worry about. We're all going to Heaven. God will look upon the righteous and unrighteous alike and say, "Oh yeah, I took care of that ages ago. Come on in!" Why concern ourselves with belief? If I don't believe the Union won the Civil War, does that change the fact that it did? Of course not.

    If I don't believe that Jesus Christ lived, died for the sins of the world, and resurrected to conquer death, does that mean that He didn't? long as He actually did. I don't have to believe a universally beneficial event actually occurred in order to reap the benefits of that universally beneficial event...assuming, of course, that it actually did happen. Everyone is saved. From Good Friday 30AD onward.
  15. #35 Tusk Barnes, Nov 28, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2010
    Thank you, KingdomSeeker, for such an in depth response.

    Alright...What did it feel like, and how did you know it was Him that you felt, and not just some horemonal chemical reaction in your brain from a "religious experience," as Jiggs likes to call it? Where did you feel it? Your chest? Your head? Under your skin? In your feet?

    I don't think I've understood this. You say you had a reason to believe in a god before you believed in THE God, but then you use THE God as your reason for believing in a god to begin with. Please, clarify.

    Also, surely humans did not have to learn to create. We've been doing so for tens of thousands of years. Apes create tools. Birds create nests. Ants create intricate tunnel systems, all without having to learn how, and they've all been doing so far longer than we have. No need to apologize, just do a little more research.:wink:

    This was not exactly the foundation of my question, but now I'm curious. Why are you telling me that a city that all the record keepers make no point of ever mentioning is proof that it was a real place? Again, I'm not sure I'm understanding you.

    Concerning Tacitus, we must note that even if the novelistic passage in question were authentically Tacitus', it would prove nothing more than that he knew of the existence of Christians, not "Christ" or "Jesus of Nazareth." Tacitus lived from ca. 55 CE to ca 120 CE and wrote probably after the last of the canonical gospels (John) were in circulation.

    In actuality, Tacitus, was considered a credible historian, however, this bit of writing attributed to him was NOT considered credible even by the earliest fathers and sons of the church. Here are several reasons I can say this...

    1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
    2. Tertullian [ca 160-ca 220 CE] was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed. [The fact that Tertullian claims Nero was the first to persecute Christians without citing the authority of Tacitus to prove this is inexplicable if the passage existed in Tertullian's day. By the time Tertullian was writing, all sorts of legends had developed.]
    3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
    4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
    5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
    6. It is not quoted by ANY Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
    7. At this time but one copy of the "Annals" existed, and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century—600 years after the time of Tacitus.
    8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian, the insertion of a forgery was easy.
    9, It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintillian. [I have not yet tried to verify this independently. frz]
    10 .The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
    11. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century. [It is entirely possible that the story found in Sulpicius Severus' Chronicles 2:29 — itself apparently modeled upon the story of Galerius' burning of Nicomedia in 303 CE—served as the stimulus for a Renaissance forger to add the story to Tacitus' Annals.]
    12. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertaiments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
    13. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

    This passage by Tacitus, like that of Josephus, is likely a forgery.

    Hold on, hold on, hold on. You can't use a source that you yourself have discredited as false and twisted to prove the one thing out of it that you believe is true, and expect me to believe it. You ought to use sources that you find credible, at least.

    Haha. Yikes, man. I guess I'm glad we don't have any Rabbinical Jews around here, or they might take offense to that. They'd probably think you were the one who hated God because you worship a man. I would like some of that OT Scripture to back up the claim that it says God has a (one) son.

    And this opposing force is Jesus, the Son of God? How? Why?

    This is so false, it hurts. I would go into your religious references, but I probably wouldn't be able to do it in a kind way. I apologize.

    We already have a word for God, then. It's love. What do we need God for? And if it's His will that no man should perish, then why do men perish? Are we humans capable of trumping God's will? And if He will not accept sin, then why did He accept the one who became sin (Who was actually Himself) as a viable sacrifice for all mankind? Also, how do you deal with Satan visiting God in the Book of Job. He didn't seem to have too much of a problem being in the presence of sin then.

    I don't know how to best put this. There really probably was no Adam, man. Evolution has proven true with no yet known exceptions. Man and woman did not suddenly magically appear on this planet. They evolved. Adam and Eve were not the first humans, and the original sin story is, at best, allegorical. Sin didn't come from one man. If you'd like me to assume that the Genesis story is factual, I would be glad to, but there is still a whole heapin' helping of poor judgment and false justice going on. The whole tale is a witch's brew.

    OK. Two questions here. What does it say about God that He demands the slaughter of innocents to appease Him? How is He any different from the Volcano gods who demand virgin sacrifices. What exactly is the moral lesson being taught when you teach your worshipers that they can simply cast their wrongdoings onto the hide of another creature...Another man, in Christianity's case? I don't get it, but it seems so so wrong.

    Second question. You say that God bore the penalty in order to create the new covenant...but He created the penalty too, right? So...God payed Himself for a price He had previously been charging us, which He knew we couldn't pay ourselves. Why didn't He just make the price more reasonable to begin with, and avoid the whole brutal sacrifice thing. It doesn't seem loving...It seems convoluted.

    ALL Mankind? Does that mean I'm saved too? Jesus died for me?

    God rose Himself to life. Again, this sacrifice doesn't seem that impressive. Jesus, being God, knew He would die. But He also knew that He wouldn't be staying dead. He knew He was all powerful, and He knew that He couldn't be destroyed or defiled. So what's the big deal?

    So did He die? How is He alive if He died? If you're dead...that's it, game over. That's what I don't get.

    I really do appreciate your answers, but I think they've just spurred more questions.
  16. OK. How do you know that these personal experiences are with Him, and not just one of those religious experiences you accuse me of having?

    I was not aware that Flesh Jesus and Spirit Jesus were mutually exclusive. I thought Jesus meant Jesus. And what historical writings are you referring to?

    How can I know if I've also experienced these things?

    You mean He chose to be obedient to Himself? And when you say "all things" does that include me?

    I'd still like to also read these historical texts. And I might need you to explain what supernatural means.
  17. #37 Tusk Barnes, Nov 28, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2010

    I suggest that a perfect, self-sufficient, sovereign being cannot be in want, because that would be a contradiction of those characteristics.

    Perfection implies a lack of deficiency. Want or desire implies that there is something you don't already have...a deficiency.

    Self-sufficiency implies that all He could ever possibly need, want, desire, etc. is found in Him no need for worship, no need for praise, no need for sacrifice from anyone else. Being in want, means that there something He cannot provide for Himself, and must rely on other means to attain it...thus not self-sufficient.

    Sovereignty implies supreme power and authority, leaving no room for questions. If there weren't any room for questions there would be no room for doubt. And yet, there are billions who doubt...mostly because this supreme authority has not done a very good job of itself apparent to the globe.

    Ok, ok. So if He gave us the choice, then why does He get so upset when we choose incorrectly. Why does He expect us to act like Him, when He created us to be humans? If He gave us free will, that was a gamble on His part. Although, it could hardly be called a gamble, since He already knew what the outcome would be...And yet, even though He made this choice to give us a choice, knowing that an overwhelming majority of us would not choose Him, He wants to penalize us?

    I don't get it.
  18. You give me too much credit and your friends not enough.

    Don't you think if I were baiting and playing them they'd know it? Don't you think I'd know it? And when you say "more than adequate," what do you mean?
  19. If you gave your only son.. to DIE on a cross.. to save the lives of others, and then they chose not to take that gift.. you would be angry too right! If you knew they were headed straight for hell fire and you had warned them, yet they would not head, then I believe anyone would be upset by that decision
  20. I never suggested it was a sin to want. I merely suggested that, as Perfection and self-sufficiency are defined as "without deficiency," to want or desire or demand or long for ANYTHING implies a lack. You can't want anything if you already have everything. It implies a deficiency. If something is self-sufficient and perfect (without deficiency), as God is, then that means it cannot possibly want, desire, demand or long for anything. If He's truly perfect and self-sufficient, then He's already got everything. He lacks nothing. Therefore, there exists no thing which He does not have. He can't possibly want anything else without ceasing to be perfect or self-sufficient. He would cease to be perfect and self-sufficient because He wants something that He does not already have...a deficiency. Something He relies on others to give Him (i.e. Worship, praise, sacrifice).

    I don't know how to put it any more simply. Sorry if this isn't clear.

    First off, if this gift were truly free, you wouldn't have to accept it. You would just have it. God created Hell and gave us an ultimatum. "Take this gift, or I'll burn you forever." God has no reason to be upset at us for exercising the free will He gave us, even if He doesn't like the outcome.

    It's extremely shortsighted on His part to get upset over something He had the foresight to see and the power to alter before He started the universe. Threatening me for not choosing to transfer my offenses to His Son's hide shows a gross misunderstanding of what it means to be a father in the first place.

Users Who Have Read This Thread (Total: 0)