Choosing a faith

I agree that many of the minionswould feast as parasites upon believers but not exclusively. Satan knows he needs to discredit the church and what better way than from within? Satan also knows that all he needs to do with the secukar world is to dekude them into thinking that all progressive ideas are good ones.The devil is in the details.

Would this be the sense you're talking about here? absolute truth being something that humans cannot change... it just simply "is."Skeptics certainly do have such a thing... it's called reality.The difference between you and the skeptics you denounce is:Phat seems to think that ? can define what "absolute truth" actually is and no one can argue with it.
? = The Bible?
? = Phat?
? = Phat's trusted advisors on what the Bible means?
? = Phat's interpretation of God?
? = Phat's acceptance of trusted advisor's interpretation of God?Skeptics seem to think that no one can define what "absolute truth" actually is - and reality will show us and no one can argue with it.Which do you think is closer to "absolute truth?"
-the one who thinks they can define it and know it completely and can't be wrong?
-the skeptic who thinks it's unknowable, but willing to admit when they're proven wrong about it?

In your analogy, the 2nd one would be closer.But allow me to redefine the first example.--the one who believes they have met Him and believe in Communion spiritually with Him and yet are NOT Him and don't know it all. In which case, we both can be right.

I'm really confused on this Stone Mason stuff.You seem to be saying this about the point of the Stone Mason analogy. Which seems entirely irrelevant to when you brought it up originally Message 1019We were talking about purpose... and I was saying direct purpose (making it yourself) was more powerful than indirect purpose (getting a purpose from God) because that's how purpose works. You seemed against this position, and I thought you were bringing up "a good analogy" in order to show how getting a purpose from God is actually direct... or even though it's indirect it's actually better than making the purpose yourself.But... it seems like the analogy is only about how God takes everyone's purpose and makes it fit/work-with God's purpose? Which is nice... but irrelevant to the point I was attempting to make. It doesn't make it a better purpose and therefore cannot be seen as "ultimate purpose."I'm staring to think that I didn't explain my original position well enough and you started talking about something else in the confusion I created.
So I'll just scrap it all and start over:1. A purpose feels strong and good and right if it is something you personally hold as a priority.
-the more the purpose aligns with your own personal feeling on it's priority, the stronger the sense of "this is right" will be2. If you can find a purpose that aligns with something that you personally hold as the highest of all priorities, this will then be your "ultimate purpose" because you will be taking action in directions that align with your highest of all possible priorities.
-like bad-ass Stone Mason Stile making bad-ass ornaments
-like GDR and sacrificial love
-like Roman leaders and trying to "bring Rome to the world"
-like baseball-lovers trying to get everyone to play baseball3. My point is: It's possible to become aware of a purpose from an outside source that matches your personal feelings on priority. But with the nuance that comes along with "personal feelings of priority" it's highly likely that it's not going to match exactly or possibly not match at all.
However, if you do some inner-soul-searching and discover for yourself exactly what your personal feelings on priorities actually are... and then create a purpose for yourself that matches your highest priority... it will, by definition, match EXACTLY, and therefore have a much greater chance (100%, actually) of being your "ultimate purpose" rather than any other purpose found from any other external source (even an all-powerful, creator God.)This is the context I'm coming from when I'm saying God's purpose can only match our own "ultimate purpose" and can never exceed it. Because "purpose" comes from our own feelings on priorities. God can provide an idea that matches our own feelings on priorities... but never exceed them, since ultimate-purpose/feelings-on-highest-priorities come from within.This is where I'm coming from when I say that claiming other-information can be an "ultimate purpose" simply doesn't understand what purpose actually is.If you do not agree, and still think ultimate purpose can come from any external source (even God,) I would expect something along showing me that #1 or #2 is wrong above, and that isn't actually what "purpose" is and "purpose" is something else.
-this would involve you actually defining/identifying what "purpose" is and how your explanation is more accurate (closer to reality) than mine. If you want to argue that "ultimate purpose" is "ultimate nice/love/sacrificial-love..." on some made up scale (even if made up by God Himself) I find that argument easily shown to be incongruent with reality as many people have "ultimate purpose" in things that do not involve people at all (like my example of bad-ass Stone Mason Stile) and this is immediately disproven if you have any respect for how many people live their lives in reality.To me, this reads as "what I think is best is ultimate for everyone because I really like what I think is best."
-it's nothing but arrogance and ego
-it's easily proven to be false
-why should anyone agree with you unless they already happen to agree with you before you even talk to them?
-it is entirely unpersuasive from an objective, outsider position

This has the possibility of being acceptable. However, your past track-record tells me that you do not actually believe in what you've said here.This isn't the first time we've had this similar conversation.
If you actually believed this "redefinition" you've made, then you'd never actually say:

quote:

---

The problem with skeptics is that many of you knowingly or unconsciously look for contradictions. You crave them You need them. All that we are trying to get through to you is that the message is true and real. Granted we ignore many of your contradictions because in our minds the truth wins out eventually. In your mind, there is no absolute truth.

---

But you did say it.
And you say such things a lot.
And you'll (likely) say such things again.Saying such things proves that you actually do not believe the statement you've written to me.
Saying this means you, in fact, do "know it all" enough to make the above quoted statement.So, my acceptance on us "both being right" is if you actually believe what you've said, take it to heart, and stop repeating these foolish ideas you spout on skeptics.However, my guess is that there's a 90% chance you only wrote those words to "appease Stile" and not because you actually meant them. In which case - no, we can't "both be right" and I will continue to correct you when I see you reverting to how you actually believe again.

I'd say it would be pretty obvious it would occur at or near the end of the revolution. That would be how the Romans would respond to the Jewish revolution. The vision is about the establishment of a heavenly kingdom that is for the Earth. However nit is not a kingdom with an earthly king but a heavenly one.I hate getting dragged into these discussions as it is ancient Jews using Jewish apocryphal language to paint a picture. It shouldn't be taken to literally but it can be used to paint a picture of sorts to help build an understanding of what the resurrection means for the world. I agree that without the resurrection it all falls apart. With all the success they had the movement simply came to a grinding halt which would have been the case with Jesus' movement without the resurrection. Oh the pain. You are right and I am wrong. I had to read up on it and I took the date of the Maccabean revolt as being the date Daniel was written. Thanks for straitening me out. Firstly, I don't accept the idea that Daniel used supernatural knowledge to write what he wrote, however it was in his words a dream so we can make what we want of that. Just the same, Jesus kept using the term Son of Man in reference to Himself so it obviously meant something to Him. We are now left to form our own picture as to what this means after the resurrection.

quote:

---

I'd say it would be pretty obvious it would occur at or near the end of the revolution. That would be how the Romans would respond to the Jewish revolution.

---

But the end of the events is God’s intervention, and that is when it occurs.

quote:

---

The vision is about the establishment of a heavenly kingdom that is for the Earth. However nit is not a kingdom with an earthly king but a heavenly one.

---

The revolt is still earthly.

quote:

---

I hate getting dragged into these discussions as it is ancient Jews using Jewish apocryphal language to paint a picture. It shouldn't be taken to literally but it can be used to paint a picture of sorts to help build an understanding of what the resurrection means for the world. I agree that without the resurrection it all falls apart

---

The Resurrection isn’t even part of this.

quote:

---

With all the success they had the movement simply came to a grinding halt which would have been the case with Jesus' movement without the resurrection.

---

That “grinding halt” goes beyond anything Christianity established in a similar timeframe.

quote:

---

Oh the pain. You are right and I am wrong. I had to read up on it and I took the date of the Maccabean revolt as being the date Daniel was written.

---

The Maccabean revolt is the right date - but for some reason you confused it with the end of the Hasmonean dynasty. In reality the Maccabean revolt lead to the foundation of that dynasty.

quote:

---

Firstly, I don't accept the idea that Daniel used supernatural knowledge to write what he wrote, however it was in his words a dream so we can make what we want of that.

---

That is likely fiction. And nearly half the chapter is the explanation of the “dream” (verses 15-28)

quote:

---

Just the same, Jesus kept using the term Son of Man in reference to Himself so it obviously meant something to Him

---

Since we don’t have Jesus’ exact words he could have been just emphasising his humanity, since that is the meaning of that phrase.
Or even sometimes speaking of humanity in general.

As an outspoken atheist Carrier is hardly an impartial source. The wiki page on him says this.

quote:

---

Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to most ancient historians, and he and his theories are often identified as fringe.

---

I was recently chastised by Percy by referring someone to a book. So that we can share the guilt, I'd suggest reading N T Wright, or John Polkinghorne's "Testing Scripture - A Scientist Explores the Bible" There were at least a dozen ending with the "Bar Kokhba" revolt in 135AD. Simon bar Kokhba was the last messianic claimant in that era. The point is that revolt, like all of the others ended with the Romans executing the leaders and the movement ending. Jesus is the one exception with the movement actually being invigorated after His execution.

I know, it's really unfair, a non-Christian historian researching and writing about Christianity. Progress hurts. You asked me how I knew that the Sermon on the Mount was never spoken by Jesus so I told you with references to a book, an online paper and a summary of the argument. Now you have to tell me what's wrong with it.I've read a lot of stuff written by Christians - who are "hardly impartial sources" - there is almost nothing else. I suggest you read Carrier if you want a less biased view. His book 'On the Historicity of Jesus' is peer reviewed and fully referenced so you can check the sources yourself and you will have seen another side of the argument. There were in fact dozens of apocalyptic cults based on the fictitious Daniel prophecies that were supposed to come true in the 1st century CE. The only way the Christians could continue against the Romans was to invent the idea of a virtual victory through resurrection. It's a smart move. Or at least it would have been if it had any semblance of fact. It's all myth and propaganda. You can't even show that the main character in the story actually existed, let alone all the stuff that he was supposed to have done. You haven't even started.

Really? Crawl back under your rock.

Care to join me? Its a really BIG rock. So you can either build your house on the rock...or bury your head in the sand.

You keep saying this but external evidence is incredibly weak, some say non-existent:Josephus (ca. 37 - 100 CE; oldest Greek copy is 11th century though there is a 5th century version in Latin): The Jewish historian Josephus is claimed to be the earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (ca. 93-94 CE) with the two references being referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum and the "Jamesian Reference". However, there is much debate regarding how much of the Testimonium Flavianum (if any of it) was written by Josephus[80] as there is no reference to it before the 4th century.[81][82] Moreover all of the experts who say some part of the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine are basing that conclusion on information way out of date (being 10, 20 or even 50 years old) despite discoveries that invalidate those sources.[83][84][85] While Carrier uses Bayes’s Theorem to argue that both passages are not from the hand of Josephus the consensus is that some part of the Testimonium Flavianum and all of the "Jamesian Reference" are genuine,[86] but based on Carrier's examples of Ned Ludd and John Frum even if the entire passage as we have it was written by Josephus it still would not show Jesus existed as a human being simply because it is too brief and there is no consensus on exactly what parts of the Testimonium Flavianum are actually from Josephus. Moreover it has been shown that the passage as we have it has a 19-point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.[87]Tacitus (ca. 55 - 117 CE; oldest relevant copy is from 11th century): In his Annals (ca. 109 CE) Tacitus gives a brief mention of a "Chrstus" (generally read as "Christus" but in reality it could just as easily be read "Chrestus"), in a passage that shows evidence of tampering and contains no source.[88][89] Also, the entire section of the Annals covering 29-31 CE is missing: “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two years is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence.”[72] His account is also at odds with the Christian accounts in The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) and "The Acts of Peter" (150-200 CE) where the first has Nero reacting to claims of sedition by the group and the other saying thanks to a vision he left them alone.Pliny the Younger (61 – ca. 113 CE; oldest copy is 5th century and only 6 of its 218 leaves still exist; next oldest copy is from 9th century[90]): Pliny the Younger was a Roman official who wrote innumerable letters. In one (ca. 112 CE), he references "Christians" (but not Jesus), and his "Christ" could have referred to innumerable other "messiahs" that various Jews were following. Furthermore non-Christian Jews would also fail Pliny's test[91] so at best Pliny didn't know the difference between Judaism and Christianity and at worst the passage has become corrupted.Suetonius (ca. 69 – after 122 CE; earliest copy is 9th century): Suetonius, a Roman historian born in 69 CE, made two statements (ca. 112 CE) that are often presented as evidence of Jesus. The first falls into the Chrestus category; the second merely references Christians, not Jesus.Thallus (unknown lifespan, claimed to be active in 2nd century CE): Thallus supposedly references (date unknown) a solar eclipse at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. This reference is, at best, third-hand quotation of a summary, and is not recorded in other historic records.Phlegon (unknown lifespan, 2nd century CE; no works survive): Phlegon was a writer who recorded (date unknown) an earthquake, which apologists interpreted as referring to the horrors on the day of the crucifixion. Other apologists rightly trashed this interpretation.Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ - RationalWikiIn that link you'll also find a list of historians at the time who should have written about Jesus but didn't. Jesus was important enough to be crucified as a dangerous terrorist leader, his death was very public, surely at least one contemporary historian would have written it up. There's no mention in any Roman records either. And this is only about whether Jesus existed at all, nothing to do with whether the things he is said to have done happened. That's not evidence of anything except human gullibility and marketing. Millions believe in Mormonism but the entire Book of Mormon is known to be a complete fabrication.
​ ​Within 30 years (of Jesus's death?) isn't terribly useful. The consensus is that the first Gospel, Mark, was around 70AD. It could have been 60AD - even that is 30 years after Jesus' death. (If we accept that Pilot killed him it was somewhere between (27AD and 36AD), so ok.One reason for putting the date at 70AD and after, is that all the gospels except for John (which was the latest) make references to the fall of Jerusalem which was 70AD so couldn't have been written before.

You're not agreeing. I said that the minions would BE believers. Or at least fake believers like you. The church does a fine job of discrediting itself. No Satan needed. I asked you to look at the Book of Job. Satan is God's minion. The devil is in your head.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I have. :-) As far as I know I'm the only person around that has their theology 100% correct. There might be others but I doubt it. :-)Actually that was kinda the point of this thread. IMHO God is not concerned particularly about out theology, but cares about the nature of our hearts. Of course our theological understanding can impact that as well. So whether we are Christian, Muslim, atheist or whatever isn't the point. The question is, do we love our neighbours as ourselves.Actually I'm just a boy from Medicine Hat in sunny southern Alberta but I have also lived in Montreal for many years and Toronto as well. However to balance all that off I knew that I had to import some of the New England wisdom so I married a girl from Boston. My brother-in-law lives in Portsmouth. The point when I started this thread had more to do with other Christians. I have a bit of a problem who those who read the Bible in a way that I don't believe it was ever intended. I have a lot of difficulty with those that can accept that God commits, and even more egregiously commands genocide and public stoning, and yet accepts the call to love our enemies. The two are completely incompatible and IMHO present are errant picture of God and can and has been used to justify war.In my view Faith, before she was banned, worshipped an inerrant Bible and rejecting much of what we see in Jesus. I remember using the Sermon on the Mount to contrast it against some account in the OT with her responding by saying, "well you would bring that up". I have no expectation that Tangle will all of a sudden post "I've got religion" or anything similar. The problem is that I started with a thread with a particular point in mind, and then being one of the few theists here I get dragged into so many other side issues. This thread has not been on topic all that often.Maybe the only point I want to make to the atheists here is that Christians are in disagreement over many issues. Yet both Faith and myself are Christian even though there is a wide chasm over what we believe about our faith. But we eventually do hold to a common belief that God does care about us and wants us to care about others. Of course it isn't only Christians that can come to that conclusion.

I'm really confused about what you're trying to say.It seems that you've abandoned everything in the bible apart from the nice stuff that you prefer to believe. You also add that it's not important which god you believe in so long as it has all these nice attributes.Fairly obviously, preferring particular attributes for your god is not going to affect whatever attributes the god actually possesses but I guess it's harmless enough.But all this leaves you is a general belief to live by the Golden Rule. Under that regime there is no need for all the paraphernalia of any particular religion; worship, preaching, scripture, beliefs etc etc.It seems that under your scheme atheists get to heaven too to why the need for any religious belief at all?