The spread of Christianity

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine. </font>

But Mempho, this is NOT unexpected and might be the first "typical" theistic response you've provided yet (I was so enjoying a rational exchange so far).

Proving non-existence is much more difficult (if not sometimes impossible), than proving existence. For instance...

Can you prove to me that there is not a supreme tree God who lords over all plants on this earth until they die and go to tree heaven? What if I do? You have no more proof for your POV than I do for mine. Let's stay off this road. It leads to a town called Nowhere.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. No genius on the face of the earth can convince me that they know better than I regarding whether God exists or not. (I am not saying I am right, just that they have no better argument against God than I do for Him.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you on this one. I've spent some time with Carl Sagan-types who try to argue against the existence of God. It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no need to disprove the existence of god because there is no logical proof of gods existence to begin with. Atheists simply need to point out that logically the concept of god is superfluous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Superfluous is not synonomous with false, however. It may not be "logical" but there are things in nature that defy known logic...Hurricane Vince that hit Spain as a TS is a recent example. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. We might have an explanation years from now, but we don't have one right now.



Hurricane Vince NHC Discussion

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, what? Paul did not found the Church. Peter did. As the term "founded" is commonly used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter preached to Jews. Paul to Gentiles. What we know to be "the Church" TODAY, would have been founded by Paul, really. As his teachings make up the majority of the New Testament, this shouldn't be a surprise.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine. </font>

But Mempho, this is NOT unexpected and might be the first "typical" theistic response you've provided yet (I was so enjoying a rational exchange so far).

Proving non-existence is much more difficult (if not sometimes impossible), than proving existence. For instance...

Can you prove to me that there is not a supreme tree God who lords over all plants on this earth until they die and go to tree heaven? What if I do? You have no more proof for your POV than I do for mine. Let's stay off this road. It leads to a town called Nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you on this, Lestat. I simply use this response to people who try to "convert" me to atheism. It tends to make them quiet. These are the people who promote atheism just like a religion...which I don't understand. Its not a blanket response to those with an objective mind. Notice I stated that I directed that response to people "who argued the nonexistence of God" with me...which is, as stated ealier, also a leap of faith (though I'll concede a more logical one).

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> Absolutely. I have always had the point of view that the Roman, Greek, Norse, and other pagan gods had their roots in the unexplainable phenomena of the time. </font>

Then wouldn't it follow that the Christian God may have eminated in a similar vein? Or perhaps, became a condensed version of these Gods as people disagreed which God was more important, so they evolved them into one God? Would you know if the Christian God preceded these Gods? If not, that would be significant.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. No genius on the face of the earth can convince me that they know better than I regarding whether God exists or not. (I am not saying I am right, just that they have no better argument against God than I do for Him.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you on this one. I've spent some time with Carl Sagan-types who try to argue against the existence of God. It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no need to disprove the existence of god because there is no logical proof of gods existence to begin with. Atheists simply need to point out that logically the concept of god is superfluous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Superfluous is not synonomous with false, however. It may not be "logical" but there are things in nature that defy known logic...Hurricane Vince that hit Spain as a TS is a recent example. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. We might have an explanation years from now, but we don't have one right now.



Hurricane Vince NHC Discussion

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't say I see any way what you wrote here is relevant to my point.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Absolutely. I have always had the point of view that the Roman, Greek, Norse, and other pagan gods had their roots in the unexplainable phenomena of the time. </font>

Then wouldn't it follow that the Christian God may have eminated in a similar vein? Or perhaps, became a condensed version of these Gods as people disagreed which God was more important, so they evolved them into one God? Would you know if the Christian God preceded these Gods? If not, that would be significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will quickly concede that a Judeo-christian God could've formed in the same way. The only reason that I even believe in this God is because of Christ himself. If we were still in pre-Messiah days (if you allow me the brief liberty of claiming that Jesus was the Messiah), I likely would have thought that the God of Judaism was formed in the same way.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
RJT: have you looked in to Judaism? Your posts make me think your beliefs might fit in more with Judaism than Christianity. I forget, are you Catholic or Protestant? I admire Judaism much more now than I ever did when I was a Protestant Christian. It seems to me that Christianity was really just a mix of various mythologies with "newer" Judaism -- perhaps even preached by Jesus of Nazareth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, Christians believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish prophesy. Jesus, we Christians believe (I’m Catholic, btw), is the Messiah, rather than the one the Jews are waiting for.

To answer your question, why Xn rather than Judaism. I think the idea of Christ works. Why re-invent the wheel with another Messiah? Better still, why wait when the “Kingdom of God is at hand”?

Regarding you point about myth/Judaism/Christianity, I am preparing a reply to David S.’s “New Biggest Miracle” post that I think touches on your point.

You do make a valid point about Paul though versus Peter. Paul plays a big roll. It is just that semantically Peter is referred to as the first head of the Church (not counting Jesus of course - who didn‘t actually “found“ Christianity, per se.) I really like mostly to listening to what Jesus, Himself has to say. ( I like Bob Dylan’s line, “Don’t follow leaders.” Making an exception, i.e I follow Jesus, I like to go directly to the source - Jesus). I mostly gloss over the other stuff. I am not a big fan of Paul actually, he was kind of rough/tough - you know like some reformed smokers complaining about cigarette smoke, (especially in casinos and bars, please). I am not saying I ignore the other parts of the Bible. Just that it is pretty superfluous to what Jesus says. (The non-Jesus stuff does help to understand it all, of course.)

[Lestat]

I think it can get frustrating for both sides. I admit to becoming very frustrated with some conversations I've had particularily with some Christian fundamentalists. It sometimes felt like I was trying to explain to a child that Santa Clause doesn't really exist. Ditto for tooth fairies, pixies, and elves.

Then I realized, everyone has a right to their beliefs regardless of how ridiculous or irrational they may seem to others. If someone wants to believe in astrology or numerology, so what? Whatever gets you through the night.

I do however think religious beliefs can be a very dangerous thing. They will most likely be the doom of man. Ironic, isn't it? Suicide bombers who believe they must kill the infidels in the name of God. It's just a matter of time before some religious fanatic gets hold of a WMD and dooms mankind in the name of his religion.

Anyway, I greatly enjoyed our exchange. You have opened my eyes to some things and have done so in a respectable manner absent of diatribes. I appreciate that. I wish you the best.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it can get frustrating for both sides. I admit to becoming very frustrated with some conversations I've had particularily with some Christian fundamentalists. It sometimes felt like I was trying to explain to a child that Santa Clause doesn't really exist. Ditto for tooth fairies, pixies, and elves.

Then I realized, everyone has a right to their beliefs regardless of how ridiculous or irrational they may seem to others. If someone wants to believe in astrology or numerology, so what? Whatever gets you through the night.

I do however think religious beliefs can be a very dangerous thing. They will most likely be the doom of man. Ironic, isn't it? Suicide bombers who believe they must kill the infidels in the name of God. It's just a matter of time before some religious fanatic gets hold of a WMD and dooms mankind in the name of his religion.

Anyway, I greatly enjoyed our exchange. You have opened my eyes to some things and have done so in a respectable manner absent of diatribes. I appreciate that. I wish you the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat, I hope you will take one more look at my reply above. This was in response to theories...this is certainly not a certainty, but it just one way that a just God could exist within the current framework of the world. I doubt you will find many religious leaders, atheists, or agnostics that would defend it. At first look, it may seem far-fetched, but it is plausible. The simple explanation is that there may be alternatives that are neither discussed nor forbidden by religious texts that allow for both free will and a just God. This may not be the alternative, but it is based on one man's account of a near death experience.


Is a just God logically possible?