Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Ziusudra]

Not saying it’s true, just more probable than the official version.

There's this nut-job, Lawrence Gardner iirc, who thinks JC was drugged to appear dead and then went to Scotland and founded the house of Stewart (which of course LG is descended from.)

There's also a place in Japan where JC is said to hav actually died. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing%C5%8D,_Aomori#Local_attractions

[hector13]

Scotland is very famous for giving its people a very Middle Eastern complexion, yes.

[delphonso]

You can find several graves of Christ across the US too.

[MaxTheFox]

I am a Protestant.

I do not have an uncontrollable urge to kill all non-believers or heretics unlike some here implied. For me it's just... hard to explain. It certainly made me a somewhat better person.

[TheSteppeWolf]

I am a Protestant.

I do not have an uncontrollable urge to kill all non-believers or heretics unlike some here implied. For me it's just... hard to explain. It certainly made me a somewhat better person.

Tbf the best way to go about it.

I hate it, when people try to force their beliefs on others. No matter if religious or atheism. Unless it's a dangerous cult, it doesn't hurt you. Live and let live.

[wierd]

The hilarious thing, is that aside from the OT, which was very big on "Kill all the heathens and replace them by taking over their lands!" in its prescriptions---  the NT is very much "God wants you to come to him WILLINGLY and of your own free will, not at sword point."


Which is ironic I think, since so many fundies want to ignore the NT, and go for the OT style of things.

[McTraveller]

The "funny thing" about the Old Testament and the "kill all the heathens" is that God was basically using other nations of the day to exact justice. He used the Israelites to execute sentences against atrocities of various nations.  And he used various nations to execute sentences against atrocities of Israel.  Why do people always overlook the fact that Israel spent so much time in captivity because of their own awfulness?

Regarding the New Testament about the story of the resurrection being less plausible than the Romans botching it and Jesus dying 40 days later due to infection or whatever...  the thing is there are no fewer than four Gospels, which according to secular forensic study do not have the hallmarks associated with a conspiracy.  They are very consistent with true eyewitness accounts: enough is the same and enough is different to make it very unlikely that people were able to after-the-fact construct such a story.  Coupled with the fact that there are manuscripts (again by secular scholars) dated to the first or second century AD means that a Roman coverup or a conspiracy requires just as much faith as believing the Gospels themselves.  Remember, the Gospels aren't some religious leaders' manifestos - they are just memoirs and letters.

It's up to you to decide if it's cult-leader genius or the sovereignty of God that the Gospels themselves say that even if God gave "irrefutable proof" that people wouldn't believe it - and it's pretty arguable that someone being resurrected is pretty irrefutable proof.  I mean even Paul says "we are the greatest fools, because if you can prove Christ wasn't resurrected then obviously this is all in vain."

[Grim Portent]

It's up to you to decide if it's cult-leader genius or the sovereignty of God that the Gospels themselves say that even if God gave "irrefutable proof" that people wouldn't believe it - and it's pretty arguable that someone being resurrected is pretty irrefutable proof.  I mean even Paul says "we are the greatest fools, because if you can prove Christ wasn't resurrected then obviously this is all in vain."

It would not be hard for god to provide genuinely irrefutable proof of god's existence. One documented, monitored and tested angelic manifestation appearing before a council of UN scientists would do the job. Have it show up, heal some incurable conditions, maybe bring some animals or people back from the dead, clarify a few matters of scripture and so forth on live television, multiply some mundane objects like food or medicine.

It would be actual concrete proof that god as an entity exists. Wouldn't necessarily be proof that that entity should be worshipped though.

What we have now is no more conrete proof of the existence of god than we have of the existence of Zeus or Pazuzu.

[Eschar]

To piggyback off of that, it's why I'm not part of any religion: even if supernatural intelligences are real, I see no justification for trusting any of the Things Out There. Religion requires devotion to a being - it is not just belief in, but allegiance to a (or one of many) Higher Power. And I see no way we can trust one of these distant beings enough to justify devotion or, god forbid (heh), worship.

[McTraveller]

What are you, a temporal elitist?    (In case it's not clear, the wink is to mean this is in a cordial manner, not critical...)

God did just that in the equivalent of the time. Do we think we have the right to impose that God keeps demonstrating himself that way over and over?

Also, you're forgetting the fact that even in modern society you'd have a quite significant number of people calling hoax or deep fake or whatever.

There will always be people who never take any amount of evidence as being "irrefutable."

[Eschar]

God did just that in the equivalent of the time. Do we think we have the right to impose that God keeps demonstrating himself that way over and over?

If that's his goal and he wants to be self-consistent, then he is indeed obligated to, seeing as how accounts of these demonstrations, like accounts of anything, can (justifiably) become less credible the older they are.

[Grim Portent]

Indeed, 'proof' demonstrated to people with no understanding of the scientific method and whose stuff then went through multiple translations, schisms and so forth is not proof anymore than the writings of Greek philosophers are meaningful treatises on physics or biology.

If he wanted to actually demonstrate his existence he would do it semi-regularly or wait until such a time as mass media enabled showing that proof to (almost )everyone around the world  (more or less) simultaneously.



Viable proof would also be if relics had the mystical properties attributed to them by some 2000 years of Christian society. If the bones of Saints or the foreskin of Christ actually harbour any of the divine energies claimed by the faithful past and present it would be trivial to prove that and by extension provide some physical evidence of the divine.

[Telgin]

The lack of even a passing attempt by god to provide proof of his existence is one of the biggest roadblocks for me and is a huge part of why I lost faith a while ago.  It's particularly difficult with the traditional depictions of the Christian god, who is all knowing, all powerful and all too eager to send people to Hell who don't worship him.

Under those rules, god knows I'm a very analytical person who will not simply accept his existence without reason.  Presumably he created me like I am.  Presumably, that means he created me knowing I'd go to Hell, and he's okay with that.

Even if I did believe in such a being, how I could I worship something so evil?

Of course, there are different interpretations of god, so one's mileage may vary, but I don't think it's an unreasonable interpretation based on the Bible.

[MaxTheFox]

Yeah that's not quite my interpretation. I believe in free will. I interpret omniscience as knowing all possible timelines but only being able to make a reasonable guess what which one will actually happen.

[lemon10]

Even if I did believe in such a being, how I could I worship something so evil?

I feel that "He will have me tortured for all eternity if I don't worship him" is a pretty compelling argument to worship him.

Is it an evil thing to do? Oh yeah, totally. Is it effective anyways? Yup.

Like I don't know about doing literally anything he says to avoid such a fate, but if Moloch came down tomorrow* and said "WORSHIP ME OR I WILL DEVOUR YOUR SOUL AND YOU SHALL SUFFER FOR TEN MILLION YEARS" I would go "Yes, Mr. Moloch, you really are the best most awesome god, do you like this burnt-offering I made for you?".
--
*Assuming I didn't think I was going crazy and that he was telling the truth.