Who Are We To Not Believe Jesus?

[WENG 0]

Every one have choices,But i talk about what the Bible says ,and encourage us to know the truth.What happen if we believe not Jesus?John3:18He that believeth on him shall not condemned:but he that beleieveth not condemned is condemned already,because he hath not believed in the only begotten son of God.God condemned those who beleiev not Jesus the only way to heaven who pay sin.They are under God's wrath because not believing Jesus who came to save.

[deadmad7 4]

LOL. I don't believe in Jesus. Does that mean I am condemned? or God's gonna "unleash his wrath"? That's just absurd. I mean, there could be a Mr.Jesus Something a loooong time ago (1 a.d.) and he was a spiritual guy and then after he died, people blew up the story about his powers and how he died... just like Santa Claus, he lived but he was a normal person... people just added Rein deers and flying sleighs and the stuff about elves and north pole. I believe in God though, a bit. Not the Big White Guy with A Huge Beard. I think its like a spirit inside everyone... or its like a force around us that creates everything and like what everything is made up of, those are my closest "GOD" things. And that's just one bad God if he is just gonna condemn half the people in the world (just my opinion... )

Edited December 1, 2010 by deadmad7 (see edit history)

[kobra500 1]

Every one have choices,But i talk about what the Bible says ,and encourage us to know the truth.What happen if we believe not Jesus?John3:18He that believeth on him shall not condemned:but he that beleieveth not condemned is condemned already,because he hath not believed in the only begotten son of God.God condemned those who beleiev not Jesus the only way to heaven who pay sin.They are under God's wrath because not believing Jesus who came to save.

When you study history you gain an appreciation that you can never 'know' (taking it to mean Justified True Belief) anything. To say that you know something is really to say that you hold a justified belief that you think is true, but believing something is true does not make it true, therefore, you cannot literally know anything. Of course you may say that you know something that isn't even justified, just plausible but justification is a subjective term. When studying history therefore, you weigh up the various sources and interpretations and you take a side, the side with the most convincing sources and interpretations at the time (at least to the historians) is what is accepted but that doesn't mean it is true only likely. William Lane Craig in his masters degree wrote that he thought we can "know" things that happened in the past but I don't find this convincing, for one thing while History is objective we analyse it only from subjective sources, it to me seems impossible to know something objectively through a subjective means but I don't know what you think. To me it is like saying that you can know objectively that the rumour spreading around the playground, workplace etc is definitely true. You can't.

The further back you go as a general rule the harder it is to know anything, people were less literate, there are less sources and even less survive because of age. The bible has survived for so long because it was constantly rewritten as well as many other of the sources that did not make the cut, so to show that Jesus probably existed you have to verify the historicity of these sources. The trouble is that the bible isn't a diary, it isn't a biography it is an anthology of various works from the time and before. Not all of them are about Jesus, the old testament obviously isn't so really it's the new testament we have to go on as well as these other sources and I'm just going to say that they are far from proving Jesus really existed. To accept the Historicity simply of the Passages about Jesus mean having to accept supernatural claims which is not something I am going to do, and certainly from the point of view of trying to get as close to an objective view of history as possible am unable to do.

Secondly I don't think that Jesus didn't exist, I don't think he did either, I am "Jesusnostic" in that I simply have no idea if he did or didn't exist. I don't lean either way but the point is that even if he did exist that does not make anything supernatural or even natural written about him true, it does not prove God and it does not prove he is the son of God, all it would show is that a man called Jesus existed, possibly did and said some of the things written about him, who knows.

Thirdly I find it funny that the bible has to try and threaten me into believing in him, that to not believe in him is a crime, despite the fact that belief is not a choice, you either believe something or you don't, you can be persuaded to believe one side over another but you cannot be forced to believe something without losing something anyway, 1984 style.

Fourthly the argument "The Biblical Jesus existed because the bible tells me so" is circular and therefore, invalid.

[Harlot 2]

I say who are you to not believe in whatever you wish to believe in. Everyone has their own personal beliefs, and that is what is so beautiful about a free and open society. The fact that an individual can believe in whatever religion they wish, create their own religion, or have no religion at all. People are free to create their own Gods or worship the Gods of others. Everyone has to choose their own path, and even Christians understand that Jesus died on the cross in order to give a freedom of choice to all of mankind. You have to choice to be forgiven for your sins or be judged in contempt in the end of the world's days. It is not the obligation or duty of man to judge man according to the Christian beliefs and values. Nevertheless, everywhere we go, we see people being held in judgment. The sinners of the world are supposed to be welcomed into the church, and there is suppose to be an opened door policy. Jesus didn't save those who were already saved, he saved those who needed his attention and his love and care. At least that is what the Christian belief teaches. If you are a Christian, the teachings of Jesus should not be tweaked or modified in order to justify human ignorance and nature. I have seen churches who close their doors to all except for their membership. I have seen churches who refused to home funerals for those who were not members. I have seen churches that have swindled, bribed, and pillaged the always poor people within their communities. We need churches that love and care, churches that leaves negative judgment unspoken and in the closet. We need churches who extend a hand and save the sinners, feed the poor and help heal the sick. We don't need churches who criticize non believers, and who condemn the homosexuals. We don't need churches who shut their doors to prostitutes, strippers, drug dealers, and pimps. Those are the people who need God the most, and who need the people of God in their lives. No matter what religion we believe in, it is obviously clear that Christianity would be a great tool if used correctly and used with care and honesty. I see the power of Christianity in my community every day, and it is a positive force that changes live. It is a force that make people change their ways, and put down the crack rock or the alcohol bottle.My point is that at the root of Christianity, or at least in theory, is tolerance. I am not sure about the old testament, but that was the teaching of Jesus at least. That tolerance also extends not only to the sinners all across the world such as the prostitutes, pimps, strippers, and drug dealers, but also the non-believers and religions that Christian do not believe are legitimate. I think I like the good Jesus, the one who is tolerate and loving, the one who cares for his fellow neighbor and treat those who are even against him with love, respect, and common decency. We are all human beings searching for our own truth, and we have to be held accountable for our own choices in the afterlife, if there is an afterlife and if there is something to be held accountable for.

[WENG 0]

When you study history you gain an appreciation that you can never 'know' (taking it to mean Justified True Belief) anything. To say that you know something is really to say that you hold a justified belief that you think is true, but believing something is true does not make it true, therefore, you cannot literally know anything. Of course you may say that you know something that isn't even justified, just plausible but justification is a subjective term. When studying history therefore, you weigh up the various sources and interpretations and you take a side, the side with the most convincing sources and interpretations at the time (at least to the historians) is what is accepted but that doesn't mean it is true only likely. William Lane Craig in his masters degree wrote that he thought we can "know" things that happened in the past but I don't find this convincing, for one thing while History is objective we analyse it only from subjective sources, it to me seems impossible to know something objectively through a subjective means but I don't know what you think. To me it is like saying that you can know objectively that the rumour spreading around the playground, workplace etc is definitely true. You can't.
The further back you go as a general rule the harder it is to know anything, people were less literate, there are less sources and even less survive because of age. The bible has survived for so long because it was constantly rewritten as well as many other of the sources that did not make the cut, so to show that Jesus probably existed you have to verify the historicity of these sources. The trouble is that the bible isn't a diary, it isn't a biography it is an anthology of various works from the time and before. Not all of them are about Jesus, the old testament obviously isn't so really it's the new testament we have to go on as well as these other sources and I'm just going to say that they are far from proving Jesus really existed. To accept the Historicity simply of the Passages about Jesus mean having to accept supernatural claims which is not something I am going to do, and certainly from the point of view of trying to get as close to an objective view of history as possible am unable to do.

Secondly I don't think that Jesus didn't exist, I don't think he did either, I am "Jesusnostic" in that I simply have no idea if he did or didn't exist. I don't lean either way but the point is that even if he did exist that does not make anything supernatural or even natural written about him true, it does not prove God and it does not prove he is the son of God, all it would show is that a man called Jesus existed, possibly did and said some of the things written about him, who knows.

Thirdly I find it funny that the bible has to try and threaten me into believing in him, that to not believe in him is a crime, despite the fact that belief is not a choice, you either believe something or you don't, you can be persuaded to believe one side over another but you cannot be forced to believe something without losing something anyway, 1984 style.

Fourthly the argument "The Biblical Jesus existed because the bible tells me so" is circular and therefore, invalid.

The Bible is give us to know and to search the truth.Many are to blinded about it,and they are teaching in many different knowledge that come not from God.The Bible is give to know that Jesus died for them and the Bible says God condemned those who do not believe Him.God did not say in his word to threatening people or to make believe him.There is a reason why God wants people to believe Him.
One is He is God who made us life,who created all things ho give souls,and who sent Jesus to die and to pay for our sin.We need to believe him because he is the one will save us ,the only way to Heaven.John14:6,acts4:12.
God will not force you to believe him,but he wanted you to trust him for salvation,and if not God will caste you out in hell. it is you choice!

[kobra500 1]

The Bible is give us to know and to search the truth.Many are to blinded about it,and they are teaching in many different knowledge that come not from God.The Bible is give to know that Jesus died for them and the Bible says God condemned those who do not believe Him.God did not say in his word to threatening people or to make believe him.There is a reason why God wants people to believe Him.One is He is God who made us life,who created all things ho give souls,and who sent Jesus to die and to pay for our sin.We need to believe him because he is the one will save us ,the only way to Heaven.John14:6,acts4:12.
God will not force you to believe him,but he wanted you to trust him for salvation,and if not God will caste you out in hell. it is you choice!

No, it isn't. It is BlackMail, it is the very definition of the word. I choose to not be part of his choice, I don't want to go to heaven or hell, My CHOICE the choice I have made is to die and for everything to end. God or any being has NO right to blackmail me into worshipping him, and if he sends to to hell he is malevolent. You call us blinded but you are blinded to reason, that you can't see that any being that would punish another for eternity can never be benevolent. Only malevolent

[Bikerman 2]

No matter what religion we believe in, it is obviously clear that Christianity would be a great tool if used correctly and used with care and honesty. I see the power of Christianity in my community every day, and it is a positive force that changes live. It is a force that make people change their ways, and put down the crack rock or the alcohol bottle.

I don't agree that it is so obvious. I'm more familiar with Northern Ireland, where Protestants and Catholics have been slaughtering each other for a very long time; I see the Catholic church telling Africans that condoms are evil, and won't protect against Aids; I see the Anglican church falling apart over various forms of bigotry (homophobia and sexism being the main two).

My point is that at the root of Christianity, or at least in theory, is tolerance. I am not sure about the old testament, but that was the teaching of Jesus at least.

Again I don't agree. If you read the bible carefully you will see that Jesus was a good Jew. He was interested in saving the chosen people (Jews) not everyone else. He makes it clear that the 'laws' of the Old Testament (as contained in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) should be honoured to the letter (these are the laws that command the stoning of adulterers, the killing of children who cheek their parents, the massacre of any town or city containing unbelievers etc etc). Jesus was quite clear about how he saw the 'gentiles':

"Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5,6)

"It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:26)

(this is referring to a Gentile woman's request that he heal her daughter and comparing the Jews to children and the gentiles to dogs).It is Paul who, after Jesus's death, opens up the new church to the Gentiles - and he is criticised by other Christians for doing so. Paul was involved in a battle with the leaders of other sects at the time (including Peter). Thus John scowls at Paul and his Gentile following, who "say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan".

[mahesh2k 0]

What i find funny with Christianity is their claim of 'son of god'. I mean are they for real ? Son of god who can't even save his backside is going to be our savior. Why he couldn't saved his life to begin with. Oh the excuse of sin and died for your sins. Any tom, *BLEEP* and harry can get crucify and claim that i died for your sins by sidelining the biggest issue of not saving his own life. I mean, hello uncle you're son of god for christs sake. use your f***N super power to teach humans and your enemies a lesson. It's really drama of deluded, this religion. God with personality ? seriously ? hmm. i mean we have supernova like horrible event in cosmic observation, this son-of-god can stand against this ? no. against meteors ? no. Jesus as human being of humanity preacher ? sure i'll buy it. Jesus as son of god and savior BS, sorry. Not gonna buy, even for free.

[kelvinc2 0]

LOL. I don't believe in Jesus. Does that mean I am condemned? or God's gonna "unleash his wrath"? That's just absurd. I mean, there could be a Mr.Jesus Something a loooong time ago (1 a.d.) and he was a spiritual guy and then after he died, people blew up the story about his powers and how he died... just like Santa Claus, he lived but he was a normal person... people just added Rein deers and flying sleighs and the stuff about elves and north pole.
I believe in God though, a bit. Not the Big White Guy with A Huge Beard. I think its like a spirit inside everyone... or its like a force around us that creates everything and like what everything is made up of, those are my closest "GOD" things.

And that's just one bad God if he is just gonna condemn half the people in the world

(just my opinion... )

If God tells us to do something for Him, and if we don't then He'll smite us (while we are innocent), then that's tyranny. The Bible tells us that in the beginning we are all sinful. And because we are all sinful we will all go to Hell (That's the condemnation). But through God's grace, if we trust and put faith in Him, we may be saved.

Therefore, what the scripture is saying is actually "If you trust Me (Jesus/God), you will be saved, and go to heaven. And if you don't, you will go to hell, BECAUSE you have sinned against Me(Jesus/God) right from the beginning."

When you study history you gain an appreciation that you can never 'know' (taking it to mean Justified True Belief) anything. To say that you know something is really to say that you hold a justified belief that you think is true, but believing something is true does not make it true, therefore, you cannot literally know anything. Of course you may say that you know something that isn't even justified, just plausible but justification is a subjective term. When studying history therefore, you weigh up the various sources and interpretations and you take a side, the side with the most convincing sources and interpretations at the time (at least to the historians) is what is accepted but that doesn't mean it is true only likely. William Lane Craig in his masters degree wrote that he thought we can "know" things that happened in the past but I don't find this convincing, for one thing while History is objective we analyse it only from subjective sources, it to me seems impossible to know something objectively through a subjective means but I don't know what you think. To me it is like saying that you can know objectively that the rumour spreading around the playground, workplace etc is definitely true. You can't.
The further back you go as a general rule the harder it is to know anything, people were less literate, there are less sources and even less survive because of age. The bible has survived for so long because it was constantly rewritten as well as many other of the sources that did not make the cut, so to show that Jesus probably existed you have to verify the historicity of these sources. The trouble is that the bible isn't a diary, it isn't a biography it is an anthology of various works from the time and before. Not all of them are about Jesus, the old testament obviously isn't so really it's the new testament we have to go on as well as these other sources and I'm just going to say that they are far from proving Jesus really existed. To accept the Historicity simply of the Passages about Jesus mean having to accept supernatural claims which is not something I am going to do, and certainly from the point of view of trying to get as close to an objective view of history as possible am unable to do.

Secondly I don't think that Jesus didn't exist, I don't think he did either, I am "Jesusnostic" in that I simply have no idea if he did or didn't exist. I don't lean either way but the point is that even if he did exist that does not make anything supernatural or even natural written about him true, it does not prove God and it does not prove he is the son of God, all it would show is that a man called Jesus existed, possibly did and said some of the things written about him, who knows.

What you say is true, that history written may be subjective, but the account itself remains objectively true. If you believe that Julius Caesar existed through numerous literature, then maybe you should also consider that Jesus existed as literature written about Jesus counts far more than Caesar.

Thirdly I find it funny that the bible has to try and threaten me into believing in him, that to not believe in him is a crime, despite the fact that belief is not a choice, you either believe something or you don't, you can be persuaded to believe one side over another but you cannot be forced to believe something without losing something anyway, 1984 style.
Fourthly the argument "The Biblical Jesus existed because the bible tells me so" is circular and therefore, invalid.

As said above, regarding the talk on "why should I believe simply He tells me to." It's not that you will go to hell because you don't believe in Him. It's "Because you have sinned, you will go to hell. But Jesus came and died for you in your place, so if you believe in Him, you will be saved."

I say who are you to not believe in whatever you wish to believe in. Everyone has their own personal beliefs, and that is what is so beautiful about a free and open society. The fact that an individual can believe in whatever religion they wish, create their own religion, or have no religion at all. People are free to create their own Gods or worship the Gods of others. Everyone has to choose their own path, and even Christians understand that Jesus died on the cross in order to give a freedom of choice to all of mankind. You have to choice to be forgiven for your sins or be judged in contempt in the end of the world's days. It is not the obligation or duty of man to judge man according to the Christian beliefs and values. Nevertheless, everywhere we go, we see people being held in judgment. The sinners of the world are supposed to be welcomed into the church, and there is suppose to be an opened door policy. Jesus didn't save those who were already saved, he saved those who needed his attention and his love and care. At least that is what the Christian belief teaches. If you are a Christian, the teachings of Jesus should not be tweaked or modified in order to justify human ignorance and nature. I have seen churches who close their doors to all except for their membership. I have seen churches who refused to home funerals for those who were not members. I have seen churches that have swindled, bribed, and pillaged the always poor people within their communities. We need churches that love and care, churches that leaves negative judgment unspoken and in the closet. We need churches who extend a hand and save the sinners, feed the poor and help heal the sick. We don't need churches who criticize non believers, and who condemn the homosexuals. We don't need churches who shut their doors to prostitutes, strippers, drug dealers, and pimps. Those are the people who need God the most, and who need the people of God in their lives. No matter what religion we believe in, it is obviously clear that Christianity would be a great tool if used correctly and used with care and honesty. I see the power of Christianity in my community every day, and it is a positive force that changes live. It is a force that make people change their ways, and put down the crack rock or the alcohol bottle.
My point is that at the root of Christianity, or at least in theory, is tolerance. I am not sure about the old testament, but that was the teaching of Jesus at least. That tolerance also extends not only to the sinners all across the world such as the prostitutes, pimps, strippers, and drug dealers, but also the non-believers and religions that Christian do not believe are legitimate. I think I like the good Jesus, the one who is tolerate and loving, the one who cares for his fellow neighbor and treat those who are even against him with love, respect, and common decency. We are all human beings searching for our own truth, and we have to be held accountable for our own choices in the afterlife, if there is an afterlife and if there is something to be held accountable for.

As you say "searching for our own truth" you are saying that of subjective truth or objective truth? Subjective truth can be found anytime you want such as "Murdering people is a good thing" (That's subjective truth demonstrated in the context of moral). But if you are looking for objective truth, then God, creator of universe, is your answer - Just as human cannot create objective moral (as it will only be subjective to yourself), there must be a upper authority to create this moral to rule over the people.

No, it isn't. It is BlackMail, it is the very definition of the word. I choose to not be part of his choice, I don't want to go to heaven or hell, My CHOICE the choice I have made is to die and for everything to end. God or any being has NO right to blackmail me into worshipping him, and if he sends to to hell he is malevolent. You call us blinded but you are blinded to reason, that you can't see that any being that would punish another for eternity can never be benevolent. Only malevolent

Again, refer to the first answer.

What i find funny with Christianity is their claim of 'son of god'. I mean are they for real ? Son of god who can't even save his backside is going to be our savior. Why he couldn't saved his life to begin with. Oh the excuse of sin and died for your sins. Any tom, *BLEEP* and harry can get crucify and claim that i died for your sins by sidelining the biggest issue of not saving his own life. I mean, hello uncle you're son of god for christs sake. use your f***N super power to teach humans and your enemies a lesson. It's really drama of deluded, this religion. God with personality ? seriously ? hmm. i mean we have supernova like horrible event in cosmic observation, this son-of-god can stand against this ? no. against meteors ? no. Jesus as human being of humanity preacher ? sure i'll buy it. Jesus as son of god and savior BS, sorry. Not gonna buy, even for free.

If he didn't die for our sin, who is paying for the consequence of sin? He died, and rose again. To you, do you think that dying and rose again is not a super power?
It's written in the Bible that through the crucifixion Jesus has victory over Satan.
Edited May 24, 2011 by kelvinc2 (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

As you say "searching for our own truth" you are saying that of subjective truth or objective truth? Subjective truth can be found anytime you want such as "Murdering people is a good thing" (That's subjective truth demonstrated in the context of moral). But if you are looking for objective truth, then God, creator of universe, is your answer - Just as human cannot create objective moral (as it will only be subjective to yourself), there must be a upper authority to create this moral to rule over the people.

LOL - not this old chestnut again.

I'll take this out in several different ways, for fun.

 

First the 'practical' rebuttal:

 

1) You ASSERT that there IS absolute morality (unproven and actually unlikely), and further assert (whilst claiming it is a deducation - ie it follows logicxally) that absolute morality cannot exist without God. For the purposes of this first rebuttal, I'll concede that latter point (though it is wrong, as I'll demonstrate in another posting).

 

So, let's say you are right and we 'deduce' God from the existence of 'absolute' morality. Does that tell us anything about this God? Not really - could be malevolent, could be indifferent, could be benevolent. No way to tell. What we CAN do is make an educated guess, based on the evidence. Most people who have ever lived have died young, in great pain. Since this God is said to be the source of 'absolute' morality then we can apply this 'absolute' morality to this issue.

 

What would we call a person who could stop people dying in great pain, at no personal cost, but chose not to do so?

We would call such a person immoral. It wouldn't matter if the person claimed they had something else more important to do. What, we would ask, could possibly be more important that saving countless people from suffering and death?

 

So the God which you claim to deduce, because you claim there is absolute morality, does not itself feel bound by that absolute morality, and since that morality is, you say, absolute then it follows that God is absolutely amoral at best, and actually immoral on many occasions.

 

Then there is the 'applied' rebuttal:

 

2) The 'absolute' morality specified by the Christian God (jesus) is actually pretty immoral in most people's eyes. The main message Jesus has is 'take no care for the 'morrow'. We are urged to throw off attachments (including family and kids) and 'follow' him. In other words, one must refuse to take responsibility for one's own material needs and the needs of dependants, and let God do it. I call that both irresponsible and immoral - which is probably why most Christians ignore it. As for the rest of Jesus' morality - he makes it clear that people should obey Jewish Law (Matthew 5:18). That moral 'law' is pretty damn useless. Half of it can best be described as the ranting of a jealous and insecure deity. The rest forbid things that were already forbidden long before the Hebrews came alone - for the simple reason that groups that DO kill each other, or steal without sanction, tend to die out. As a side-point this is why we see similar 'morals' in other social animals. Troops of monkeys also tend to avoid killing each other and stealing from each other. And the Jewish moral law ends with a prohibition on covetousness - which it seems to me is the basis of capitalism.

 

So, what else can we say about this Christian 'absolute' morality. Well, here are some things that are moral (even in some cases required, which would make NOT doing them immoral) according to the bible:

 

Keeping slaves; beating slaves (as long as they recover in a few days sufficiently to walk); murdering cheeky kids (Proverbs 20:20), adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13) and anyone who isn't Jewish (Deuteronomy 17:12, Exodus 22:19, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13) - I'll let you extend that to Christian if you insist; rape (Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14...and many more)

 

So this is surely some very 5th rate 'absolute' morality that you say exists. Moreover it is obvious to anyone that our present morality is hugely different to that of 1st century Palestine. Sexism, racism, homophobia - all things sactioned in the bible - are no longer tolerable and are regarded as immoral. Nor can you say that the morals expressed in the bible, particularly in the OT, have changed, because you have already asserted that they are absolute (therefore cannot change).......all in all it ends up in a right pickle for the Christian apologist.

 

Then there is the 'semantic' rebuttal:

 

3. If God is the source of absolute morality, does God give us this morality because it IS absolute? If so then it follows that it is absolute regardless of God, and God is redundant. If not, then morality is just the whim of God and not absolute at all.

 

Then there is the 'self-consistency' rebuttal

 

4. You assert that absolute morality exists. The only evidence available for this claim is observation of human behaviour which, it is true, does tend to show that certain things are taboo in pretty much every culture examined. These include murder (meaning killing people within the group - which is also how the bible meant it) and theft (again meaning stealing from members of the group). These are best explained in evolutionary terms, without invoking the supernatural. Nonetheless, this is the evidence available to support the claim. BUT that SAME evidence shows that much of the rest of what we regard as 'moral' is not at all consistent across cultures. Certainly it isn't considered immoral to not worship a deity on the sabbath in most cultures. Neither is it considered immoral to lie in all cultures. So the evidence which is used to support the assertion actually refutes it - clearly some, if not most, of our current morality is evolved/developed.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Bikerman (see edit history)