Christians on Decline, Non-believers Skyrocketing in US

[SlowSpyder]

This should go well here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIxSeiqyGXQ

Love those videos. 🙂 Watching this one now.

 

[bshole]

Their argument is "it is impossible for us to do that so it does not apply to us". With that single thought, they flush down the toilet the holy words of God himself. Their blatant disregard and atheism towards revealed truth is a strong motivation for others to not accept Christianity. The hard verses which require something of them are inapplicable, the easy verses which allow them to comdemn others (such as homosexuals) must be followed rigidly. It is a smorgasbord religion, pick and choose what you like and completely ignore that which you don't.

What really enrages me about this passage of the Bible is that if Christians actually followed it and it worked, the entire world would convert to Christianity in very short order. Have Christian ministers show up at cancer wards throughout the world and cure everybody inside. This is what God said you could do if you believed. It would save billions from the fires of hell and eradicate disease on earth. Unfortunately the only Christian ministers healing are charlatans looking to enrich themselves. For a God who is desparate for all of us to get to heaven, God isn't working very hard. He leaves passages in the Bible that his followers can't live up to and then forces them to make up excuses as to why those passages are false.

 

[Mai72]

 

[soulcougher73]

If God is all knowing why didn't he just write the book himself? He should have known all this debating/arguing would take place over it by leaving it the hands of men to write it for him. You would think his language would be exact and precise to not allow one single word to be misinterpreted or fought over.

Oh well. I guess he isn't all we say he is cracked up to be.

 

[Blackjack200]

If God is all knowing why didn't he just write the book himself? He should have known all this debating/arguing would take place over it by leaving it the hands of men to write it for him. You would think his language would be exact and precise to not allow one single word to be misinterpreted or fought over.

Oh well. I guess he isn't all we say he is cracked up to be.

The most compelling evidence against Christianity is everything that has happened for the last 2,000 years.

 

[SlowSpyder]

What really enrages me about this passage of the Bible is that if Christians actually followed it and it worked, the entire world would convert to Christianity in very short order. Have Christian ministers show up at cancer wards throughout the world and cure everybody inside. This is what God said you could do if you believed. It would save billions from the fires of hell and eradicate disease on earth. Unfortunately the only Christian ministers healing are charlatans looking to enrich themselves. For a God who is desparate for all of us to get to heaven, God isn't working very hard. He leaves passages in the Bible that his followers can't live up to and then forces them to make up excuses as to why those passages are false.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+11:12-25

Have you ever heard anyone pray a mountain into the sea? I'm completely with you... I would think it would get quite tiring always coming up with excuses of why passages in the bible are clearly not correct. Stories like the link above probably have a lot to do with how many christians today don't take the bible literally, they say there is a lesson to be learned. But then how do you know what's literal and what's figurative? We're talking about an all powerful, all knowing, timeless being here.

 

[Ban Bot]

I'd like to see them drink the deadly poison. Then we can prove the Bible is real. Also, according to that text all Christians can lay on hands and heal.

That's awesome.

I am shocked this sub-thread got legs. I thought the first was obvious (just because signs accompany believers [see translations] is not the same as all believers will perform all miracles). Just a cursory reading of Acts shows not all believers were able to perform miracles and Paul's epistles (which predate Acts and Mark) show the expectation in the congregation is gifts were not universal in all members.

Contextual reading is pretty important. In this same chapter it is said "“But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”" What, is Peter not a disciple?

The other issue is the text consists of the "long ending" of Mark 16. The general (although not complete) consensus is v.9ff is an expansion by an early hand (2nd c. CE at the latest) which had the works of the Apostles in view. I find it significant the early codices (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) lack the long ending. This is why most Bible's have a note like this:

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
​

The expansion is a summary of many of the miracles (pasted from the wiki):

v.9 seven demons were cast out of Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2);
v.11 they refused to believe it (Luke 24:10–11);
v.12–13a two returned and told the others (Luke 24:13–35);
v.14 appeared to the Eleven (Luke 24:36–43, John 20:19–29, 1 Cor 15:5);
v.15 Great Commission (Matthew 28:19, Acts 1:8);
v.16 salvation and judgment (Acts 2:38, 16:31–33);
v.17a cast out demons (Luke 10:17, Acts 5:16, 8:7, 16:18, 19:12);
v.17b speak with new tongues (Acts 2:4),
v.18a pick up serpents (Luke 10:19, Acts 28:3–6);
v.18c lay hands on the sick (Mark 5:23, Acts 6:6, 9:17, 28:8);
v.19a ascension of the Lord Jesus (24:51, John 20:17, Acts 1:2, 1:9–11);
v.19b sat down at the right hand of God, (Acts 7:55, Rom 8:34, Eph 1:20, Col 3:1);
v.20 confirmed the word by the signs that followed (Acts 14:3).

The addition relies heavily on the Gospels and Acts and was probably inserted as Mark is a cliff hanger and ends v.8 "And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Which isn't so much a problem in the big picture (e.g. Luke & Acts should be treated as one work) but as a standalone work is curious. The works mentioned in v.9ff heavily parallel the works of Peter and Paul.

RE: "I'd like to see them drink the deadly poison. Then we can prove the Bible is real." The Bible answers that line of thought many times (i.e. testing God). A survey of Jesus ministry is chalk full of how he refused to give signs to mockers sans the sign of Jonah.

Of course you would counter that is because the critical thinkers want clear undeniable proof and he could not fool them.

 

[Blackjack200]

Of course you would counter that is because the critical thinkers want clear undeniable proof and he could not fool them.

I always hear this, but how about starting with some evidence? Forget proof.

Seems to me like the only evidence for the divinity of Jesus is a few accounts written 40 years after Jesus's death.

 

[Mai72]

I told a Christian that there are over 2,000 religions that are currently practiced worldwide.

I then told him to tell me why I should follow Christianity and not any of the other religions. He couldn't give me a real answer. He kept saying "because the bible is God!" The bible might be GOD to you, but other people follow other religions. What makes them wrong and you right. He couldn't give me a true answer.

IMO, Christians are the most ignorant people that I've ever met.

 

[Retro Rob]

I then told him to tell me why I should follow Christianity and not any of the other religions. He couldn't give me a real answer. He kept saying "because the bible is God!" The bible might be GOD to you, but other people follow other religions. What makes them wrong and you right. He couldn't give me a true answer.

Sounds like you're making this story up to support...

IMO, Christians are the most ignorant people that I've ever met.

...this conclusion of yours.

In all likeihood, you are making this up.

 

[child of wonder]

I always hear this, but how about starting with some evidence? Forget proof.

Seems to me like the only evidence for the divinity of Jesus is a few accounts written 40 years after Jesus's death.

Exactly.

From noon to 3pm before Jesus died the sun stopped shining. (Mark 15:33, Matthew 27:45, Luke 23:44-45)
The entire earth shook, the temple curtain was torn in two, and many holy people who had died rose from their graves and were seen by many people. (Matthew 27:51-53)

Why didn't any local historians record this? The earth shook and people rose from their graves for many to see! The entire land went dark from noon to 3pm!

All we get is the gospels, all written at least 40 years after the events would have happened.

 

[Retro Rob]

Seems to me like the only evidence for the divinity of Jesus is a few accounts written 40 years after Jesus's death.

You DO understand that the "40 years" after Jesus death is simply a made-up time-frame?

Why?

Because...that time-frame was chosen to remove the prophetic power from Jesus' foretelling, 40 years earlier ironically, of the Great Jewish Revolt of 70 C.E.

The only evidence that they really provide is the idea that it was impossible for him to make such a prophecy. That's really NOT evidence.

Just imagine how many things that were "impossible" 150 years ago that we cannot seem to live without today!

 

[mindmajick]

I'm just glad (over 500 years before jesus) Buddha wrote stuff down.

Not sure why jesus didn't think to do that. At least Moses and John Smith both got tablets... And promptly misplaced them.

 

[mindmajick]

What really enrages me about this passage of the Bible is that if Christians actually followed it and it worked, the entire world would convert to Christianity in very short order. Have Christian ministers show up at cancer wards throughout the world and cure everybody inside. This is what God said you could do if you believed. It would save billions from the fires of hell and eradicate disease on earth. Unfortunately the only Christian ministers healing are charlatans looking to enrich themselves. For a God who is desparate for all of us to get to heaven, God isn't working very hard. He leaves passages in the Bible that his followers can't live up to and then forces them to make up excuses as to why those passages are false.

I am shocked this sub-thread got legs. I thought the first was obvious (just because signs accompany believers [see translations] is not the same as all believers will perform all miracles). Just a cursory reading of Acts shows not all believers were able to perform miracles and Paul's epistles (which predate Acts and Mark) show the expectation in the congregation is gifts were not universal in all members.

Contextual reading is pretty important. In this same chapter it is said "“But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”" What, is Peter not a disciple?

The other issue is the text consists of the "long ending" of Mark 16. The general (although not complete) consensus is v.9ff is an expansion by an early hand (2nd c. CE at the latest) which had the works of the Apostles in view. I find it significant the early codices (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) lack the long ending. This is why most Bible's have a note like this:

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
​

The expansion is a summary of many of the miracles (pasted from the wiki):

v.9 seven demons were cast out of Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2);
v.11 they refused to believe it (Luke 24:10–11);
v.12–13a two returned and told the others (Luke 24:13–35);
v.14 appeared to the Eleven (Luke 24:36–43, John 20:19–29, 1 Cor 15:5);
v.15 Great Commission (Matthew 28:19, Acts 1:8);
v.16 salvation and judgment (Acts 2:38, 16:31–33);
v.17a cast out demons (Luke 10:17, Acts 5:16, 8:7, 16:18, 19:12);
v.17b speak with new tongues (Acts 2:4),
v.18a pick up serpents (Luke 10:19, Acts 28:3–6);
v.18c lay hands on the sick (Mark 5:23, Acts 6:6, 9:17, 28:8);
v.19a ascension of the Lord Jesus (24:51, John 20:17, Acts 1:2, 1:9–11);
v.19b sat down at the right hand of God, (Acts 7:55, Rom 8:34, Eph 1:20, Col 3:1);
v.20 confirmed the word by the signs that followed (Acts 14:3).

The addition relies heavily on the Gospels and Acts and was probably inserted as Mark is a cliff hanger and ends v.8 "And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Which isn't so much a problem in the big picture (e.g. Luke & Acts should be treated as one work) but as a standalone work is curious. The works mentioned in v.9ff heavily parallel the works of Peter and Paul.

RE: "I'd like to see them drink the deadly poison. Then we can prove the Bible is real." The Bible answers that line of thought many times (i.e. testing God). A survey of Jesus ministry is chalk full of how he refused to give signs to mockers sans the sign of Jonah.

Of course you would counter that is because the critical thinkers want clear undeniable proof and he could not fool them.

All it would take is ONE in modern times to convince the world. With cold hard evidence.

Yes. I mock. I didn't Always. I was raised with NO religion and was taught to find out for myself.

I'm the guy that refutes "there are no atheists in foxholes". Not even a small chance i would pray... It was never ingrained in me. Most who have "found jesus" were already quite familiar with the myth as a child.

I'd be meditating my arse off in that foxhole though!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So little? I guess you don't know that Jesus authored not a single word in the Bible?

That's Christanity 101. You need to start at the basics before you come my way.

Christianity 101:

1.) All scripture is "God breathed."
2.) Jesus is God.

In fact Jesus authored every word of the bible. Sorry to hear you're going to hell believing your heresy.

 

[Ban Bot]

I always hear this, but how about starting with some evidence? Forget proof.

Seems to me like the only evidence for the divinity of Jesus is a few accounts written 40 years after Jesus's death.

Obviously some evidence is it is almost universally accepted Jesus was a Jew, was baptized by John, had disciples, had conflicts with certain Jewish authorities, was crucified, and his disciples believed he rose from the grave and persisted his teachings. But that "some" evidence doesn't answer your question.

But what is your question:

whether Jesus existed, or
whether Jesus did the things reported in the documents written 40 years later (and you dismiss?), or
if Jesus is divine, or
are the Gospels reliable?

"evidence for the divinity of Jesus" is quite a different question than, "do the Gospels reflect the words and deeds of the historical Jesus?"

To my mind to prove Jesus is divine would require either a modern public act or to establish the Gospels are accurate (then that the events recorded can be verified as true, and then verify that those acts are proof of divinity--see how the bunny trail grows?)

Get those ducks in a row then we turn to what is your bar of convincing evidence?

An earnest inquiry first requires a clear question to resolve and then clearly establishing the threshold and criteria of the evidence sought. Once those two are established you can evaluate for yourself if there is even any evidence available to answer your question. If not there is no reason for your to pursue the inquiry. The next issue is when you meet other people who have different criteria is, if honest exchange is desired, to outline the differences in approach to see if there is remedy or if you believe their methodology so flawed there is no reason to continue exchange.

There are a lot of books written on this very topic. Most are familiar with mainstream apologists like McDowell and Strobel but there is serious work done by Christians scholars like Habermas, Blomerberg, Baukham, and Wright dealing with the issues surrounding the historical Jesus. And they even engage those with minimalist views (e.g. Wright and Crossan).

This isn't to bypass your inquiry--only to state the need for clear lines of dialogue and expectations. If you are demanding a voice from heaven I am afraid I cannot furnish that level of evidence. Or a video camera of any event in Jesus life.

But there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. Personally, I started with questions regarding the historicity of the Hebrew Bible which turned to messianic expectation. Many others were turned by philosophy. (But I would say most turn to the faith based on how the faith speaks to the human condition, the hope it provides, and the relationship that develop with God and people). Some it is actually science that convinces them. A lot of "thinkers" I know it is a mish-mash of the evidence because, as you note, no single line of thought is incontrovertible proof.

To answer your question I would say the best intelligent exchange would be something like the Wright/Crossan book mentioned above. If any of the points Wright makes you deem worthy of more investigation I would say the works of Habermas and Blomberg are some of the better Christian defenses for the Jesus of the Gospels is the historical Jesus. If the question is "did Jesus even exist?" there are more specialized treatises that delve into that question alone and I would start there if you doubt he even lived.

 

[mindmajick]

Christianity 101:

1.) All scripture is "God breathed."
2.) Jesus is God.

In fact Jesus authored every word of the bible. Sorry to hear you're going to hell believing your heresy.

Depends on your brand of Christianity.

In Catholicism you have the holy trifecta- father, son and Holy Ghost.

In other brands there are, of course, many different interpretations.

And then there are the other religions based on similar history: judaism and islam... Both which saw jesus as a prophet and are still waiting for the Messiah.

Edit: actually Catholicism tends to be one of the most progressive these days. Accepting of most science.. As they should be since they used to be the holders of all scientific knowledge.

 

[Retro Rob]

Depends on your brand of Christianity.

In Catholicism you have the holy trifecta- father, son and Holy Ghost.

In other brands there are, of course, many different interpretations.

And then there are the other religions based on similar history: judaism and islam... Both which saw jesus as a prophet and are still waiting for the Messiah.

Edit: actually Catholicism tends to be one of the most progressive these days. Accepting of most science.. As they should be since they used to be the holders of all scientific knowledge.

The fact that there are many interpretations by no means indicate that nothing is factual.

Case in point, a police officer meets up with 10 different people at a police station to secure facts concering a car accident, and gets 10 different version of what took place.

Does that mean that since all 10 are different, that the cops just assumes that none of the accounts are true?

That simply means that if the case is worth solving, he will sift through the accounts and get to the bottom of it, in this case, by visiting the accident scene, or in the religious case, visiting the Bible/holy book of whatever religion.

 

[realibrad]

The fact that there are many interpretations by no means indicate that nothing is factual.

Case in point, a police officer meets up with 10 different people at a police station to secure facts concering a car accident, and gets 10 different version of what took place.

Does that mean that since all 10 are different, that the cops just assumes that none of the accounts are true?

That simply means that if the case is worth solving, he will sift through the accounts and get to the bottom of it, in this case, by visiting the accident scene, or in the religious case, visiting the Bible/holy book of whatever religion.

No, the cop uses logic, and if he does not have the facts, he does nothing. Its why people are not charged for things if there is not enough evidence, unlike religion.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, the cop uses logic, and if he does not have the facts, he does nothing. Its why people are not charged for things if there is not enough evidence, unlike religion.

How can he GET facts if he does "nothing"? 🙄

 

[realibrad]

How can he GET facts if he does "nothing"? 🙄

Because does nothing means he wont charge anyone. He will investigate, but if there is not evidence, he will not arrest anyone. No arrests means no judgement.

Religion does not suffer this burden though. You will believe in the biblical flood because the bible said it happened, even though there is zero proof outside of the bible.

 

[Retro Rob]

Because does nothing means he wont charge anyone. He will investigate

That simply means that if the case is worth solving, he will sift through the accounts and get to the bottom of it, in this case, by visiting the accident scene, or in the religious case, visiting the Bible/holy book of whatever religion.

🙄

Ummm... you said the same thing I said.

Listen, you can disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[Ban Bot]

Christianity 101:

1.) All scripture is "God breathed."
2.) Jesus is God.

In fact Jesus authored every word of the bible. Sorry to hear you're going to hell believing your heresy.

Wow, that devolved fast. It went from a slip about Jesus writing so little, to a correction he didn't write anything "Christianity 101," to all scripture is authored by God you heretic... Oh well, if everyone wants to snipe and one up this thread is not longer conducive to anything profitable. The theory and process of inspiration is interesting topic but as noted above with my example "tell the disciples--and Peter" (see, Peter isn't a disciple!!) if that is how the exchanges are going to develop there is nothing to be gained in this thread.

 

[realibrad]

🙄

Ummm... you said the same thing I said.

Listen, you can disagree without being disagreeable.

I then added on to what you said. Where there is not enough evidence, the officer will not fill in the gaps with what he wants. No proof of a flood, then the officer does nothing with the claim other than to note its a claim. If the bible claims something, its not inherently true. You must question the validity of the sources and verify. If it cant be verified, then its a unfounded claim that may or may not be true. I would bet that you believe a great many things on faith though.

I am also unsure what you mean about being disagreeable?

 

[Retro Rob]

I then added on to what you said. Where there is not enough evidence, the officer will not fill in the gaps with what he wants. No proof of a flood, then the officer does nothing with the claim other than to note its a claim. If the bible claims something, its not inherently true. You must question the validity of the sources and verify. If it cant be verified, then its a unfounded claim that may or may not be true. I would bet that you believe a great many things on faith though.

I am also unsure what you mean about being disagreeable?

I think you've missed the point of the analogy, greenhorn.