The SimTropolis House of Worship

[Darth Apple 54]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Crucifixion:  Nothing special here.  Radicals were crucified all the time.  Romans seemed to have a special love for torturous death.

Resurrection:  Again, there really is no evidence.  I tend to take a different tack than others.  No one can prove that Jesus actually died on the cross.  The human body is amazing and can tolerate a lot of abuse.  The Romans may have thought he was dead.  So when his followers removed him and left him, he regained cognizance and then he died (ascended to heaven).quote>

You're forgetting the fact that he is reputed to have been severely physically abused before being put on the cross.  The ancient Romans worshipped their own power to kill, were masters of killing people, and many of their "non-lethal" punishments were just as deadly as being condemned for execution.  One of these such "non-lethal" punishment methods was use of a whip designed to remove skin and muscle from the back of the condemned.  The Romans had a rule of thumb concerning this weapon: no one survived more than 3 dozen lashes with it.  (A good executioner could literally have ripped the skin and muscle off your back and be pulling apart your internal organs before he got up to 30 strokes.)  Then there is the issue that the Romans were masters of crucifixion, with a penchant for making examples of radicals.  The Romans were so good at their crucifixion techniques that they could set up the details of your execution to ensure that you wouldn't expire before they wanted you to die.  All that said, I find it very hard to believe that the Romans would have mistakenly believed Jesus to be dead when he wasn't.

quote>

I totally agree. Plus, if blood and water poured out when they hit Him with a spear, then His heart had probably stopped completely.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

I totally agree. Plus, if blood and water poured out when they hit Him with a spear, then His heart had probably stopped completely.

quote>

Actually, if He was dead, blood could not have flowed very much.  In a crucifixion, fluids would pool in the legs.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Actually, if He was dead, blood could not have flowed very much.  In a crucifixion, fluids would pool in the legs.

quote>

To say nothing of 'water' flowing out.

Take it from personal experience, this 'pooling' (called livor mortis or postmortem lividity) can begin with 20 minutes of death and is usually finished by 6 to 12 hours. The capillaries congeal in 3 to 5.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

But, of course, when it comes to mythology, anything goes, even bleeding corpses.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Originally posted by: Crackdtoothgrin

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

*Not true. I thought you studied the Bible? You do not get into Heaven by being a good person. You get into Heaven by understanding, you can never be a good person. The Bible states, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; (semi-colon) and that not of yourselves: (colon) it is(italics) the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8,9

This clearly means; it is not a job interview, it has nothing to do with a persons goodness or badness, or by doing good things, or the way we live out our earthly life. Thus the reason, we are saved by grace. Heaven is a free gift and there are no conditions, other than faith alone. We simply have faith and we get paradise.

quote>

Seriously? You can't detect when someone is speaking in generalities or hyperbole?

I'm fully aware of the many ways a person gets 'saved,' and believe me, it depends on context. Unless, you want to claim that your explanation is better than the other 34,000 sects of Christianity, to say nothing of other religions?

If that's the case, I defer to Barbarossa's assessment.

My explanation? Huh? I gave the Word of God's explanation. Why do you defer to mans interpretations? There is only one way to salvation in Gods view. What does mans 34,000 sects have to do with the verse I quoted?

Again, you are very certainly, an intelligent person, yet seem to have no understanding of the Bible.

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

You just cursed the beauty of life itself and again, have insulted my Father and our beliefs.

quote>

Hmm. The possession of your belief by itself implies exclusivity and stratifies people on a subjective basis. I don't even need to go into detail to point out the fallacy in that.

Sure, it would be subjective, if it weren't for the fact, you are doing it in a religious thread, where it would then become, no longer subjective.

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

To damn; is to condemn by the power that judges(God). This is where we get the term, curse word. Any other slang is actually, quite okay to use. Although, not very polite in most situations, it is not a sin. The word 'damn' is very bad. Especially, when it is used in vain remarks, such as the one above. The Bible forbids the use of the word damn, without having righteousness first.

quote>

Well, sorry bub, but I don't care for eisegetical arguments against what I imply when I speak. It was slang. Take the word 'bad' for instance.

This is elementary stuff.

quote>

'Bad' as in cool, hip and also not good - Not even close to what I am pointing out. Again, it does not matter what man does with a word now or later. What matters is what God claims about this word and Gods view of it never changes. Especially, in a religious thread. So yes, your loosely used wording, is an insult, in this thread.

So then, please tell us, what is your break down and understanding of the verse, I quoted from Ephesians?

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

Originally posted by: Crackdtoothgrin

This 'perfection' supposedly awaiting the end of life will take away the very thing that makes life so damn beautiful to begin with.quote>

You just cursed the beauty of life itself and again, have insulted my Father and our beliefs.

To damn; is to condemn by the power that judges(God). This is where we get the term, curse word.Any other slang is actually, quite okay to use. Although, not very polite in most situations, it is not a sin. The word 'damn' is very bad. Especially, when it is used in vain remarks, such as the one above. The Bible forbids the use of the word damn, without having righteousness first.

quote>

The origin of the word may be exactly as you've described, but that is a somewhat archaic usage nowadays. Historically it was a very bad word, but in modern times it is generally considered to be among the most mild expletives in the English language (blasphemy simply doesn't cause offense like it used to). The fact that its usage is permitted on this site speaks to that.

And indeed, in the given context, the word is merely used as a generic means of providing emphasis. Nothing is "being damned" in the classical sense here.

Exactly - Nothing is being damned knowingly, yet Crackedtoothgrin did so vainly, in a house of worship. The word is still the same, to the faithful, so yes indeed, using the word loosely, is an insult while in this thread.

In Gods view and Christianities view, the word 'damn' is not archaic. It has very little, to do with blasphemy. Since no one is, deliberately lying against God here.

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

The tradition of celibacy in the priesthood is, perhaps, a cause of all the notoriety.  For this, we can thank St. Augustine, who was an ancient bishop.  Why this rule was promulgated is a mystery to me.  Perhaps it was a response to some problem in local life at the time, but it has become an unnecessary burden on the priesthood over the past two or three centuries.quote>

The "official" spiritual explanation is that a priest is supposed to give themselves entirely to God, and thus they can not at the same time give themselves to a woman as well.

The origin of the policy, meanwhile, may be far more down to Earth: apparently there was a problem where the children of dead priests would end up inheriting things that would otherwise revert to the possession of the church, thus costing them land, wealth, and resources that they couldn't afford to repurchase. Solution? Make the priests stay celibate.

Does priestly celibacy engender pedophilia?  Probably not, but it does attract some damaged personalities that lead to the condition.quote>

Indeed, what no doubt happens is that someone realizes they are a pedophile, and then realizes that in order to lead a good life they must remain celibate... so they go become a priest, because it gives them a convenient justification for doing so without having to admit their embarassing sexuality to the world. Problem is, the job tends to involve being around children a lot, and sometimes the resulting temptation becomes too strong to suppress.

I am for a removal of the rule of celibacy in the priesthood.quote>

It would certainly solve a lot of the church's problems, but I don't see them reversing centuries of tradition on this matter. It'd be a huge leap, and the Vatican just isn't that flexible.

quote>

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

It would certainly solve a lot of the church's problems, but I don't see them reversing centuries of tradition on this matter. It'd be a huge leap, and the Vatican just isn't that flexible.

quote>

Considering the steps taken by Vatican II, such a reversal would be vintage.  The pope is sovereign over the clergy so all it would take would be a papal bull.  This shouldn't cause much upheaval because the phase-in would occur naturally.  Eventually they would get to the point that all bishops had to be wed.  St. Augustine was reputed to be married with nine children, so it is certainly nothing new.

[Darth Apple 54]

Well, in the case of the heart actually stopping, yes, liquid can pool near the heart. I am not a doctor, but I hear that doctors today deal with that.

[Wrightguy0 40]

the bible is not now, nor has it ever been the absolute truth, that however does not make it insignificant, millions of people worldwide find meaning in the passages, and it's the basis of so much of our culture, but the book is a collection of stories designed to inspire hope, compassion, and a sense of self worth, the old testament included a list of rules that when applied to daily life in pre roman society helped the population to stay somewhat cleaner, unfortunately 4000 years of people exploiting the book have led to the twisting of many of the stories and meanings we know today. i plead that we stop using the book as a tool of hate, and continue using it to inspire peace.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh.

Exactly - Nothing is being damned knowingly, yet Crackedtoothgrin did so vainly, in a house of worship. The word is still the same, to the faithful, so yes indeed, using the word loosely, is an insult while in this thread.

In Gods view and Christianities view, the word 'damn' is not archaic. It has very little, to do with blasphemy. Since no one is, deliberately lying against God here.

quote>

I did not, and I repeat not, vainly use my choice of the word 'damn' to incite intentional disrespect. I was using it to show emphasis on the beauty of life. You're treading awfully close to being personal, bub. You keep trying to change the meaning of what I say to your personal views.

Next thing you know, I'll be dancing around Rome playing a fiddle.

And this place is not, as I apparently have to repeat, solely for Christianity. The invitation was for all epistemic systems. I have every right to be in here and voice my opinions, as much as you do. Your 'house of worship' includes allowing my way of life, which is critical thinking and debate. Just because religious discussion is welcome doesn't mean that my intentions are somehow magically altered like blood to wine. I carry whatever meaning I choose when I speak.

As for calling the Bible God's word, you have to prove God exists for that to be considered in a rational discussion. If it isn't falsifiable, it can't be included. But beyond that, it is still just the word of man, despite the lofty claims to the contrary.

Originally posted by: Wrightguy0

the bible is not now, nor has it ever been the absolute truth, that however does not make it insignificant, millions of people worldwide find meaning in the passages, and it's the basis of so much of our culture, but the book is a collection of stories designed to inspire hope, compassion, and a sense of self worth, the old testament included a list of rules that when applied to daily life in pre roman society helped the population to stay somewhat cleaner, unfortunately 4000 years of people exploiting the book have led to the twisting of many of the stories and meanings we know today. i plead that we stop using the book as a tool of hate, and continue using it to inspire peace.quote>

I never said it was insignificant, just wrong. I find Fight Club significant, but I don't create a terrorist organization out of my basement with boxing matches. I consider Huckleberry Finn significant, but I don't ride down the Mississippi. To each his own.

And, the positive side of the book is plagiarized. Just copied from much older works, like the Cynics and Stoics, and many other religions. As for 'twisting' it, it actually condones some pretty heinous things.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

In spite of everything that has been said, we still have a Pharasee or two among us.  Let us be careful of insisting on the written by who knows word.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The whole Christian schtick is such a bore, I'll stay with my deistic beliefs.

[Darth Apple 54]

My argument remains the resurrection of Christ. Could you tell me where His body is?

N_O_Body: Would you mind explaining your beliefs to me please?

About Islam? Well, I don't understand how Adam and Eve could have been Muslims if Islam didn't pop up until 600 A.D. I also hear a lot of "There is a God here. His name is Allah. He isn't very popular. You must appease him enough for him to love you." from Muslims. Is "Allah" really there? Has anyone ever reached sinless perfection? Islam states that Jesus was just a prophet, but that He was sinless. Umm... even the prophets had sin. Jesus was sinless because He was the Messiah, the Son of God. That was how He could be completely sinless, unlike anyone else in history. If Jesus were merely a prophet, He wouldn't be able to reach sinless perfection. You might challenge the idea of HIm being without sin. Well, all of Jesus' accusers were unable to agree on any accusation. The accusation for which Jesus was crucified was based on their misunderstanding of who Jesus was. Jesus' resurection also says something about who He was. It is evidence that God accepted Jesus' sacrifice.

The above are just my views. I understand that they may be offensive to some. That's OK, and I apologise in that case. I do not intend to attack beliefs or to offend anyone in any way; all of us have rights to our own beliefs.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

My argument remains the resurrection of Christ. Could you tell me where His body is?

quote>

My argument remains his one-time existence at the very least. Could you tell me where the evidence is? (That's not an attack, by the way, despite the way it may sound.)

Originally posted by: blakesterville

The above are just my views. I understand that they may be offensive to some. That's OK, and I apologise in that case. I do not intend to attack beliefs or to offend anyone in any way; all of us have rights to our own beliefs.quote>

No need to apologize for having a belief. Having a belief in the first place implies exclusivity. Naturally, it will offend somebody somewhere. But you aren't directing it towards anyone or demanding conversion, so it's all cool.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

My argument remains the resurrection of Christ. Could you tell me where His body is? quote>

By now? Long rotted away to nothing, I'd figure.

I don't understand how Adam and Eve could have been Muslims if Islam didn't pop up until 600 A.D.quote>

Well, for starters, Muslims do not believe that Islam really originated in the 7th century. The Muslim belief is that it existed in the very beginning but over time got muddled up because people incorrectly retold the stories, they got mistranslated, etc.

There is a tendency to want to think of the origins of Islam like this (if you'll forgive the crudeness here):

Allah: Mohammad! I'm going to recite a new holy book to you! Go write it down and start a new religion with it!quote>

But, by muslim teaching, it's more like this:

Allah: Okay, you guys, you've messed the religion up. Lemme set some things straight here. This is how it originally was, this is how it should be from now on. Listen up because I'm not going to correct you again!quote>

In other words, God handed down Islam, but it was corrupted by men into Judaism. God handed down Islam again, and it got corrupted again, this time into Christianity. Then, third time's the charm, God handed down Islam and it stayed Islam.

For this reason, there is a big deal made out of:

A) The fact that Koran passages were written down right after they were presented by God - no intervening oral tradition to change the story.

B) The fact that the Koran, as taught and read by its followers, remains untranslated in its original Arabic, identical to how it was first written down 1300+ years ago.

Neither of those things can be said about the Bible. We still have the original Bible texts, yes, but they are in ancient Languages that the common man cannot read. And unlike the Koran passages, they were not written down as they were first authored.

...of course, no one really knows where the Koran came from. And it is more logical that Islam developed out of Judedochristian ideas as well as borrowing from pagan religions that were predominant in the region at the time.

Indeed, Christianity did that too. Saturnalia, anyone?

[jglei701 8]

What better way to convert pagans than to teach them not to celebrate the birth of the sun but to celebrate the birth of the Son?

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: jglei701

What better way to convert pagans than to teach them not to celebrate the birth of the sun but to celebrate the birth of the Son?quote>

Or to just incorporate their beliefs in a giant steamroller to make it more palatable, and when that's finished, kill the dissenters, haha.

[jglei701 8]

Beliefs like gift giving?

I seem to recall some travelers from a far who came bearing gifts in the Christmas story as well.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

My argument remains the resurrection of Christ. Could you tell me where His body is?

N_O_Body: Would you mind explaining your beliefs to me please?

quote>

Resurrection of Christ.  Well, if you are Christian, you believe that Christ ascended into heaven, body and all.

My deist beliefs?  Simple, the title of my organization says it all.  The Church of God the Utterly Indifferent.  Started the universe up, and now fries other fish.  Might look at the results once in a while, or maybe not.

As for religions based on literature, one is as good as another.  You might just want to include Scientology along with all the others.  Who can believe in all that conflicting clap-trap?

[jglei701 8]

Which conflicting clap-trap would you be referring to?

If you're talking about discrepancies between religions (say, Christianity and Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism) then there isn't really much of an argument there... They don't claim to be the same. In fact, they actually claim NOT to be the same. The argument that they are the same is being made by you, which is a clear contradiction.

Perhaps you can go in depth as to how or why one is as good as another.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: jglei701

Which conflicting clap-trap would you be referring to?

If you're talking about discrepancies between religions (say, Christianity and Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism) then there isn't really much of an argument there... They don't claim to be the same. In fact, they actually claim NOT to be the same. The argument that they are the same is being made by you, which is a clear contradiction.

Perhaps you can go in depth as to how or why one is as good as another.quote>

Well, deists support their belief in a God based upon evidence and personal observation. The average argument behind 'one is as good as another' is usually not a statement of belief in their literal similarity, but rather their common origins in having been created by man, and based on the interpretations of others, oftentimes without any hint of empiricism. Since they come from the interpretations of others, which may or may not be shared, they collectively offer no universal 'truth' to a deist, no matter which one is being discussed, as their claims to truth cannot oftentimes be substantiated. (Note: I'm not trying to speak for him, just continuing the conversation. I'm sure he'll correct any differences between this statement and his own beliefs when he gets to it.)

It goes back to the 'First Cause' argument in that, if the world was created by something, there isn't any certainty as to which one or ones created it, what where the intention(s) in having done so, if it was accidental or not, or even if the creator(s) was/were intelligent.

You seem to be playing a little bit of Devil's Advocate, and I'm interested in knowing what you believe yourself.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Darth Apple 54]

I don't think that the history of Judaism VS. the history of Islam make them mesh together that well. They seem to be two completely different religions to me. Some might say that Christianity erupted out of Judaism, and that is true, but the Jews knew the Messiah was coming. Christianity was really just Judaism in its fulfilled state. They did mesh together, unlike Islam and Judaism.

Does God not care about us today? Well, let me explain my view, please. I know that God must care for us because of what Jesus Christ did for us. God didn't have to send Him. Instead, God sent His own son to us to save us, because He cares for us.

Where is the evidence today? Well, for me, it is the work that God has done in my life. I have seen God's sovereignty in many ways. Over time, I have observed how God has made the impossible possible through circumstances that nobody would find to do such wonderful things. Seriously! I call this stuff a miracle. God has often provided for people in the strangest ways. I have heard a number of stories of those who had a need, took a step of faith, and observed how God provided for that need. Of course, there are people dying today, and that is normal, since we live in a fallen world. I have just observed how God has blessed me and others so much in strange ways, and these areas seemed so strange that I don't understand how they could have merely occurred by chance.

I believe that the Bible is fairly clear on heaven and hell. It is very clear on the fact that those who don't come to Jesus go to hell, and those who do have eternal life. You may have different views, and I understand that, however, I believe that the Bible is pretty clear on heaven/hell.

I apologise if I am being offensive. I understand that my view here can be extremely offensive to many. However, if you know that a tornado is coming, then you would want to take cover immediately. If nobody told you that a tornado was coming, but instead didn't want to tell anyone because they "didn't want anyone to ruin anyone's mood", then it seems that soon enough, many people could get killed. I am not trying to force a belief on anyone. I understand that many haven't come to the conclusion of Jesus being the Messiah. I am not trying to force you to, but I am only explaining why I share Him with you.

Why are there many religions? Well, I cannot give a huge amount of answers here, but what I can say, is that, at least from a biblical world-view, that Satan is out to deceive people from the truth, and has gone to a point of influencing many religions to do this. That is why postmodernism can be so attractive. (Not that I am a postmodernist. By no means!) I don't have the time to explain evidence for Christianity now, but I might be able to explain my views more later on.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

I don't think that the history of Judaism VS. the history of Islam make them mesh together that well. They seem to be two completely different religions to me. Some might say that Christianity erupted out of Judaism, and that is true, but the Jews knew the Messiah was coming. Christianity was really just Judaism in its fulfilled state. They did mesh together, unlike Islam and Judaism.

quote>

And Islam (supposedly) was the final revelation. If anything, it came from both of them. Supposedly everybody else was wrong, and twisted it all up, and Islam was like a 'correction' for God's word.

Originally posted by: blakesterville

Does God not care about us today? Well, let me explain my view, please. I know that God must care for us because of what Jesus Christ did for us. God didn't have to send Him. Instead, God sent His own son to us to save us, because He cares for us.

quote>

A non-falsfiable claim based upon a lack of evidence and logically innapropriate. I refer to my 'first Clause' statement a few posts up.

Originally posted by: blakesterville

Where is the evidence today? Well, for me, it is the work that God has done in my life. I have seen God's sovereignty in many ways. Over time, I have observed how God has made the impossible possible through circumstances that nobody would find to do such wonderful things. Seriously! I call this stuff a miracle. God has often provided for people in the strangest ways. I have heard a number of stories of those who had a need, took a step of faith, and observed how God provided for that need. Of course, there are people dying today, and that is normal, since we live in a fallen world. I have just observed how God has blessed me and others so much in strange ways, and these areas seemed so strange that I don't understand how they could have merely occurred by chance.

quote>

I'm glad that you are spiritually fulfilled and I understand that you sincerely believe and feel that this is evidence. On a personal level, maybe. Until I develop the power to jump into your brain, I can't know this 'evidence' you claim to have. Without a way to subject it to the rigors of the scientific method, it's still all hearsay. By hearsay, I mean that it has no more truth than me claiming to have witnessed God himself. If I told you that I felt God, and he said that the Bible and the Tanakh were wrong, would you believe me just like that without proof?

Originally posted by: blakesterville

I believe that the Bible is fairly clear on heaven and hell. It is very clear on the fact that those who don't come to Jesus go to hell, and those who do have eternal life. You may have different views, and I understand that, however, I believe that the Bible is pretty clear on heaven/hell.

I apologise if I am being offensive. I understand that my view here can be extremely offensive to many. However, if you know that a tornado is coming, then you would want to take cover immediately. If nobody told you that a tornado was coming, but instead didn't want to tell anyone because they "didn't want anyone to ruin anyone's mood", then it seems that soon enough, many people could get killed. I am not trying to force a belief on anyone. I understand that many haven't come to the conclusion of Jesus being the Messiah. I am not trying to force you to, but I am only explaining why I share Him with you.

quote>

That is a thinly-veiled attempt at argumentum ad baculum. The idea being that by dangling the punishment of hell in front of someone, it will convince them. Not necessarily that you intended that, but your statements carry the inertia of the soft option form of evangelizing, whether you believe that or not.

Originally posted by: blakesterville

Why are there many religions? Well, I cannot give a huge amount of answers here, but what I can say, is that, at least from a biblical world-view, that Satan is out to deceive people from the truth, and has gone to a point of influencing many religions to do this. That is why postmodernism can be so attractive. (Not that I am a postmodernist. By no means!) I don't have the time to explain evidence for Christianity now, but I might be able to explain my views more later on.

quote>

Why are there many religions? Because people were geographically disparate and came up with their own ideas. Everybody is looking for their own form of truth. Religion is an intensely personal matter, as it should be. Only, I might add. The addition of Satan is also a 'convenient' cop-out, in my opinion. That isn't an attack against you, but rather the ideology of inventing a bogeyman to explain all the wrongs and leaving out the chance for actual critique.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: jglei701

Which conflicting clap-trap would you be referring to?

quote>

Actually, I had the Judeo/Christian books in mind.  The old testament has been superceded, and the new testament is not well co-ordinated.  Further, it has been edited by omission of a lot of the so-called apocryphica over the centuries.  None of it "comes from God".

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

I apologise if I am being offensive. I understand that my view here can be extremely offensive to many.

quote>

I don't think you are being offensive. For most people it is not that other people have different views that is offensive, it is more often in the way the views are expressed, and you are not expressing yours in an offensive manner, at least not to me. I'm finding your explanations interesting.

Originally posted by: blakesterville

 If nobody told you that a tornado was coming, but instead didn't want to tell anyone because they "didn't want anyone to ruin anyone's mood", then it seems that soon enough, many people could get killed.

quote>

There is a difference here though. Many people have seen tornadoes and their effects many times. We can also explain how a tornado works and understand it through observation and experimentation. The evidence is so abundant and clear that people like me who have never seen a tornado, can  nevertheless see the evidence that tornadoes exist,  make empirical observations and from that understand how they work. If a tornado comes we don't have to take someone's word without evidence. Even if there is a tornado siren or a weather warning we are not just accepting someone's word that one is coming without any other evidence. We have a track record for example of warnings being sounded only for good and evident reason, we have the testable explanation of the mechanism by which they work and we have multiple independent and corroborating lines of evidence that tornadoes do occur in the way we understand them.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Darth Apple 54]

There were other ways to get to heaven in the Old Testament times. I believe that this was through sacrifices and believing in God. This system no longer is active in the same form, since Christ has replaced it with a much simpler way of getting to heaven. Actually, He didn't replace it, He just payed for our sin Himself, which brought practical changes our way. That is my view.

Is there real evidence for Christianity though? I certainly understand that nobody wants to believe something that has no evidence for it. I wouldn't want to do that either. I, personally, seem to have a hard time with any other idea than Jesus being the Son of God. However, if I had no knowledge of any tornado, and told about it, it would be ridiculous! I believe that there is evidence, though. I believe that this is the resurrection of Christ.

Could the disciples have hallucinated Jesus, though? Well, if it were one, it might be possible, but even if it were only a few, it would be highly improbable. Rarely do two people have the same hallucination at the same time, and the idea of having many people, over 500, doesn't seem likely to me.

Jesus' empty tomb is also evidence for His resurrection. We don't have Jesus' body anywhere. Plus, the disciples had a huge passion for what they believed. It seems most logical to me to believe that Jesus really did rise from the dead, and appeared to the disciples and many others after He rose.

And is that evidence for God caring for us? Well, we see it everywhere, right? Suffering, pain, and so on... We (and I admit, I have asked the same question, more than once) often wonder how God could be loving if He allows this? Well, for one thing, I believe that God can always take our suffering and use it to good use when we are following Him. The other side of that is that we live in a fallen world. Fallen to sin, that is. Sin results in suffering. I am not saying that all bad things in life are a result of our own sins to be specific, but sin effects all of mankind. Everyone. When Adam first sinned, sin entered the entire world, not just one being. Now, we are all affected by this fallen world. Does that mean God doesn't care? Well, from a Biblical worldview, God didn't have to send His own son to the cross. In fact, we deserve hell from a Biblical standpoint. Jesus, however, got up from His seat in heaven, and came down to earth to live as a human. Considering how broken we are, it doesn't seem very predictable, but God was loving enough to send Jesus. Although we live in a fallen world, God gave us a way out of it -- Jesus Christ. Now this is from a Biblical view. I understand that some may have different views. I am simply explaining my own views. Now, if God certainly didn't have to send His son, doesn't it make sense that God is a loving God if He chose to anyway?

SAM: thanks.

These are my views.

-blakesterville.