Considering that the 4 Gospels are written as eyewitness accounts by separate individuals and generally agree on most points, that seems like good evidence that what was written is true. Decades is a very small amount of time, and the accounts still largely agree... — Waya

None of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and they are not independent. The disciples were illiterate Aramaic speakers in Palestine; the Gospels were originally written in Greek, which was spoken outside Palestine. Analysis of the "Synoptic Problem" shows there to be a literary dependency, and the most credible theory is that Mark was written first, and that Matthew & Luke used Mark as a source - which explains the agreements. The relationship to John is more complex, but displays evidence that the authors were familiar with the synoptic accounts.

A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross - — Blue Lux

Where did he come up with "a sage who bids men work no more"? That is against the teachings and actions of Christ; we are instructed to work hard.
"Justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice" makes sense when you consider the concepts of grace and justice put together, and needless to say, Christ offered Himself and wasn't forced into doing anything.
Sins are real, and also don't essentially effect God except that He is a personal God and cares for people, hence why he attoned for our sins.
And the cross statment is just absurd and foolish....

Some do, some don't.

None of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and they are not independent. The disciples were illiterate Aramaic speakers in Palestine; the Gospels were originally written in Greek, which was spoken outside Palestine. Analysis of the "Synoptic Problem" shows there to be a literary dependency, and the most credible theory is that Mark was written first, and that Matthew & Luke used Mark as a source - which explains the agreements. The relationship to John is more complex, but displays evidence that the authors were familiar with the synoptic accounts. — Relativist

Or maybe they saw the same events, and that is why they are similar...

Some do, some don't. — Waya

Nope.

"Or maybe they saw the same events, and that is why they are similar..."
That does not explain the identical wording in Greek. This provides an example.

The origins of humanity is a more challenging question to answer, but as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:22, every person born in the lineage of Adam has sinned, hence falling under judgment and needs the salvation which Christ offered. Hebrews 11 explains this very well. It is by faith that those before Christ received redemption. As for taking this amount of time, we must acknowledge the course of events in the Scriptures. There had to be something to set Christ apart from the masses, which comes in one way of the many prophecies. Mostly, I think this can be because our ways are not God's ways. — Waya

I see. I was more wondering why it took so long for God to realize things were going down the wrong path. Since, as you mentioned, every person born under Adam's lineage already sinned. Corroborating man's knowledge of the humanity's origins and Genesis's account makes this all very difficult/incompatible it seems. Either Genesis is correct or not. If it isn't, then why did it take so long? Pre-history was a lot longer than the current era of Homo sapiens sapiens.

Accepting grace means to repent of wrongdoing and allow the death of Christ to pay for our sins, and believe that He rose from the dead on the third day, conquering death and sin. — Waya

I see. : )

Apologizes for the late response.

I see. I was more wondering why it took so long for God to realize things were going down the wrong path. Since, as you mentioned, every person born under Adam's lineage already sinned. Corroborating man's knowledge of the humanity's origins and Genesis's account makes this all very difficult/incompatible it seems. Either Genesis is correct or not. If it isn't, then why did it take so long? Pre-history was a lot longer than the current era of Homo sapiens sapiens. — yatagarasu

According to the account found in Genesis, directly after the Fall of Mankind, God offered hope of redemption. He knew right away things went wrong. Adam is recognized as the first man, hence salvation was available nearly immediately, regardless if one sees it as a literal or figurative passage. : )

He knew right away things went wrong. — Waya

Well he would, wouldn't he?

What, with all that omnisciences and stuff. Knowing what will happen is his job.

The Christian philosophy of the forgiveness of sins is consistent with modern neurobiology. When the brain writes to memory, aspects of the limbic system in the core of the brain,will add an emotional tag to the memory. Our memory has both sensory content and feelings.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is implicit of law. Law memory is very unique in that law memory writing contains two conflicting emotions, that are two sides of the same coin. It has the good behavior that has a tag connected to peace, rest and reward. It also has an evil tag connected to fear and pain.

Since these two sets of feelings are conflict, the natural writing process is tricked in separating one law memory into two locations in the brain. So if we try to do good by the law, the evil side of the coin is repressed. It does not go away, but becomes unconscious as a shadow affect. Sin taking opportunity though the commandment produces sin of every kind. The unconscious side of the coin can become autonomous in an attempt to merge the memory back to neutrality. The result is impulsive evil behavior inductions to merge the memory.

Love your enemy was a way to disrupt the divided mind, due to law tricking the writing process. Forgiveness of sins was a way to change the emotional tagging on the dark side of law memory, in attempt to restore a natural neutral writing process. Jesus was way ahead of his time based on science 2000 years in the future. The atheist position is not based on science, but comes from the dark side of the law memory consolidation, symbolic of Satan.

Seriously?

"The disintegration of Protestantism into over 400 different denominations is a sure sign that the restlessness continues." Carl Jung

Christianity is at base a rejection of human life. It is at base an abject, wretched revolt against humanity. It is slave morality. The idea that humanity has to be saved through a slaughtering of God is absolutely grotesque. Furthermore, blood ritual and cannibalism?

The Garden of Love
BY WILLIAM BLAKE

I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen:
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And Thou shalt not. writ over the door;
So I turn'd to the Garden of Love,
That so many sweet flowers bore.

And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tomb-stones where flowers should be:
And Priests in black gowns, were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars, my joys & desires.

Yup. Humans are sinful. What was your point? And how does Christianity reject human life? Your statement merely posses that you don't like Christianity, not that it is actually wrong. Evolution requires constant death, but no one seems to mind that...

Christianity is absolutely wrong and I can give you countless reasons.

1. The assertion that I am an abomination my blood shall be on my hands for loving a man.

2. Christianity looks at humans as fundamentally corrupt needing a savior as if they cannot save themselves. This renders humans as impotent.

3. Christianity hates life and desires. It says that this life is to be disregarded, in that one should not create their own meaning and create their own firm ethics, but merely adopt one based on an appeal to divinity, which renders man as meaningless and at base worthless in relation to God.

4. Christianity speaks of absolute truth and does not give any ideas about ethical dilemmas in which killing or stealing would be justified... In the case of having a gun and watching someone about to murder your family, true Christianity says to sit back and let God take care of it and not commit sin.

What a wonderful ideology. It is all about judgment and dressing the human up to be what he is not, namely HUMAN!

In terms of evolution, Darwin said that humans shouldn't live by survival of the fittest. I wonder why? Huh...

If there is an anthropomorphic deity, it is absolutely psychopathic and malevolent.

1. The assertion that I am an abomination my blood shall be on my hands for loving a man. — Blue Lux

And why does this make it wrong?

2. Christianity looks at humans as fundamentally corrupt needing a savior as if they cannot save themselves. This renders humans as impotent.

Again, why is this wrong? People clearly aren't capable of saving themselves, otherwise, we wouldn't die. So what if we are impotent? Why does human potential need to be an absolute truth?

3. Christianity hates life and desires. It says that this life is to be disregarded, in that one should not create their own meaning and create their own firm ethics, but merely adopt one based on an appeal to divinity, which renders man as meaningless and at base worthless in relation to God.

Why is this wrong? Man's own "meaning" and "fulfillment" to "create their own firm ethics" result in relativism and lawlessness.

4. Christianity speaks of absolute truth and does not give any ideas about ethical dilemmas in which killing or stealing would be justified... In the case of having a gun and watching someone about to murder your family, true Christianity says to sit back and let God take care of it and not commit sin.

Really? Read the Bible.

Because it is absolutely disgusting to say that I am an abomination for being gay... Duh?

It is wrong because human freedom is extremely important. Humans can save themselves. Just because we die does not mean that all is lost. Life is what matters, and we do not need to be saved and live a life in relation to the unknown, and make an appeal to some sort of absolute truth, which is if I may say at base wish fulfillment and based upon absolutely nothing substantial. Humans can provide for other humans. Not all do but that does not mean they can't. The point is to empower people through this with education and empathy, bringing people together as opposed to separating them further, which is at base all religion does.

The point is that we are not impotent. We have a will and should implement this instead of giving up, again, rejecting what we have at our disposal based upon nothing!

All you have is faith. Faith is meaningless if it renders the human having the faith, willing the faith completely impotent and without the ability to provide for others and himself, and live a fulfilling life without some sort of contingency enslaving him to a have-to, fear based morality.

And no, the Bible disgusts me.

Relativism? Lawlessness?
Have you ever heard of secularism?

Wow

Because it is absolutely disgusting to say that I am an abomination for being gay... Duh? — Blue Lux

So? I'm an abomination for being straight. Is that disgusting? Rather, it is just a pride issue. People don't like to be told they are sinners.

It is wrong because human freedom is extremely important. Humans can save themselves. Just because we die does not mean that all is lost. Life is what matters, and we do not need to be saved and live a life in relation to the unknown, and make an appeal to some sort of absolute truth, which is if I may say at base wish fulfillment and based upon absolutely nothing substantial. Humans can provide for other humans. They don't but that does not mean they can't. The point is to empower people through this with education and empathy, bringing people together as opposed to separating them further, which is at base all religion does.

Then why don't humans save themselves? Why do we still have murder, death, poverty, and all that if humans can save themselves? Why do we still die?

I will ask you to have higher quality content in this thread. If you would like to discuss Christianity, then discuss it. But make it worth a read.

Regardless of what you believe you will still die.

The soul hypothesis has been refuted time after time.

It is a disgrace to human intelligence to look at the pleasures and joys of people through a lens of corruption.

"The soul of sweet delight can never be defiled." William Blake

Notice that this is poetry.

There is nothing to discuss about Christianity.

I personally have absolutely no idea how people can still adhere to it today with so much philosophy. A Christian in the strict sense, copying and pasting his/her life in terms of the Bible's text, is the product of an impoverished education.

Regardless of what you believe you will still die. — Blue Lux

We agree! :up: Humans can't stop physical death. They are limited.

It is a disgrace to human intelligence to look at the pleasures and joys of people through a lens of corruption. — Blue Lux

Which is why Christians see others after repentance as cleansed.

Why should I ask for forgiveness for something that is of utmost meaning to me, and is beautiful?

I'm sorry I can't talk to you any more. I once promised never again to engage in conversation with people like you, and I am not going to, because at the end of the day, and it doesn't matter the means by which you do this; you will inevitably see me, my meaning, my love, my joy, my life, and my feelings, thoughts and own personal beliefs about existence as wrong. And you could say the same about me, but at least all of these things for me are the result of my own creation, from within me and not a simple adoption or assimilation. I wish I could understand you. I wish we could agree. I think at base we want the same things, but we are fundamentally incapable of having a common exchange. Sorry I engaged you.

I have a question. So one of the common questions people asks Christians is that "If God was perfect then why wasn't his creation perfect?" Then Christians would answer saying that because God made humans rational and gave them the free will, and free will can be used to do bad and good intentions, therefore good vs evil is not something of God's creation but of man's creation, and then they would also answer that because good and evil are what makes them each what they are, the comparison. But then here's my question: If God was omnipotent, meaning that he was capable of anything, everything, then shouldn't he have foresaw the outcomes of free will? Yet why doesn't he do anything about it?

If God was omnipotent, meaning that he was capable of anything, everything, then shouldn't he have foresaw the outcomes of free will? Yet why doesn't he do anything about it? — Horsland

Yes, he is capable of anything. He did see the outcomes and He did do something about it. Directly after the Fall of Man, He told us what He was going to do about it in Genesis 3:15.

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and Her seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel."

Because of our sins, Christ came and died. Because of His power and grace, He rose again on the third day. We must repent of our sins, and He will forgive.

I personally have absolutely no idea how people can still adhere to it today with so much philosophy. A Christian in the strict sense, copying and pasting his/her life in terms of the Bible's text, is the product of an impoverished education. — Blue Lux

The issue could be your definition and understanding of what a Christian is.

There is no inherent conflict between philosophy and theism.

Yet why doesn't he do anything about it? — Horsland

Because then, it would not be free. If I give you the choice of only good, and you chose good, did you chose at all.

As someone who has studied the scriptures I don't recognise most of what you claim is in the bible, do you think you may have misunderstood?

C. F. von Weizsäcker (1912–2007): German nuclear physicist who is the co-discoverer of the Bethe-Weizsäcker formula. His The Relevance of Science: Creation and Cosmogony concerned Christian and moral impacts of science. He headed the Max Planck Society from 1970 to 1980. After that he retired to be a Christian pacifist.[192]
Stanley Jaki (1924–2009): Benedictine priest and Distinguished Professor of Physics at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, who won a Templeton Prize and advocated the idea modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society.[193]
Allan Sandage (1926–2010): astronomer who did not really study Christianity until after age forty. He wrote the article A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief and made discoveries concerning the Cigar Galaxy.[194][195][196][197]
Ernan McMullin (1924–2011): Ordained in 1949 as a catholic priest, McMullin was a philosopher of science who taught at the University of Notre Dame. McMullin wrote on the relationship between cosmology and theology, the role of values in understanding science, and the impact of science on Western religious thought, in books such as Newton on Matter and Activity (1978) and The Inference that Makes Science (1992). He was also an expert on the life of Galileo.[198] McMullin also opposed intelligent design and defended theistic evolution.[199]
Joseph Murray (1919–2012): Catholic surgeon who pioneered transplant surgery. He won the Nobel Prize in Physiology in 1990. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

These are just a few of modern day scientists who are Christian, all seem quite well educated to me.

Who is supposed to answer this question?

Sorry, the format on this forum is different to what I'm used to. May have responded to the wrong post. There are some posts that seem to think that anyone who believes in God is either a fanatic or badly educated. As neither is true I wanted to make a point, anyone can respond if they wish.