How do you know you are right?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

there are no records of Jesus in Roman crucifixion records or any other secular records.

Uh, yes there are secular sources that mention Jesus.

http://members.aol.com/gunnyding/odds/odds.htm

Josephus and Tacitus.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Also, do crucifixion records exist?

[LV_Designs]

One of the key things for me was the solution God offered for the problem of humankind's "moral guilt".
There is an excellent chapter in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity on this subject, and it was during my reading of this chapter that everything began to take shape for me.

I tried to find this particular chapter concerning moral guilt online, but only found selective quotes. I would be deeply concerned if he was trying to imply that people who don't believe in God lack morals. This sort of statement would lead to the Euthyphro Dilemma. I know he was atheist at one point in his life, so he probably wasn't implying that morals are only a religious phenomena. Truthfully, and slightly ironic, my disagreement with C.S. Lewis's logic is what first started my questioning. It would be interesting to look at what he thinks is "moral guilt." I don't know, so I can only guess. My guess is that he is implying that man walks around with an unknown build up of guilt when he has not yet accepted God. Maybe he is implying that it's a built in concept of feeling guilty because the person doesn't believe in God. I find both of these reasons a bit far stretched. I'll wait to comment further when I know what he was actually talking about.

As for your experiences which all of a sudden lead you back to Christianity. I don't doubt them, but they were kind of what I was expecting. In my opinion, personal reasons for being a Christian are good for the individual but do nothing for others.

[LV_Designs]

LV_Designs, you seem to be saying that only Christians say they are right...but any claims of truth always bring along the underlying statement that all claims of truth that contradicts your own are wrong.

Well ya, I was saying that Christians think they are right. My question was why.

Atheists say there is no God, which is saying everyone else is wrong.

There are two types of atheist. Strong and weak. A strong atheist say that there definitely is no god and a weak atheist say they have no reason to think that there is a god. Most atheists are weak atheists.

Muslims say God is not a Trinity, meaning Christianity and all polytheistic/pantheistic/atheistic religions are wrong.
Hinduism says that God is everything (pantheism), meaning all claims that are made that say God is separate from His creation, or God does not exist, are wrong.

I can't argue with this. I would ask them the same question. Why do they think they are right.

1.Is the religion self-consistent? Does the law of non-contradiction apply? Are there contradictions?

The Bible is self contradictory.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
To throw out most of the contradictions you have to completely disregard the Old Testament.

2.Is the religious factual? Does it confirm to what we know to be true? Can we compare historical statements to historical studies?

In some cases we can, others we can't. How much is enough? Rather important stories in the Bible, such as the flood, are lacking in historical truth. Yes, there was a flood, but it wasn't on a global scale. But as far as the writers of the bible were concerned, the known world did have a flood. If you happen to have evidence of a global flood it would be interesting to hear. So far the most convincing argument for this is marine fossils being found on top of mountains. Plate tectonics answers this phenomena.

3.If there are scientific statements in a religious holy book, do those statements match with reality?

I'd like to know where these scientific statements are located in the Bible. The only ones I can find are false. The world isn't flat, pi isn't 3, bats aren't birds, etc.

4.Is the religion livable? Can you live your life according to the religion?

Sure it's livable. If it wasn't, no one would follow Christianity.

And, atheism...well, science contradicts its basic doctrine of evolution! Cambrian explosion (should) destroy the religion.

First of all, there are atheists who don't find Darwinian evolution convincing. Additionally, there were atheists prior to Darwin's origins. Evolution really has nothing to do with atheism, I know a lot of Christians who accept evolution as fact.

And yes, if you only look at Darwin's origins, there is a problem with facts. Science didn't know anything about dna, rna etc back then. No one is a darwinist anymore, they are neo-darwinists. Some people follow the evolutionary theory but don't believe we came from a species of ape. And really, to explain where we came from in the sense of evolution you'd have to trace all the way back to the original organism. This is not possible, because they don't leave fossil remains.

As for the Cambrian Explosion, there was life prior to this event which just happened to occur over millions of years, not instantly.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 34_02.html

Maybe you should read about modern evolutionary theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

[LV_Designs]

there are no records of Jesus in Roman crucifixion records or any other secular records.

Uh, yes there are secular sources that mention Jesus.

http://members.aol.com/gunnyding/odds/odds.htm

Josephus and Tacitus.

Both of these sources were not alive during the time of Jesus. I don't see how their accounts are viable.

Also, do crucifixion records exist?

The romans kept great records. I don't think they can be found online. But I'll try.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The Bible is self contradictory.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
To throw out most of the contradictions you have to completely disregard the Old Testament.

OK, here it is-I cannot' go through every attempt at showing contradictions. Many of them are the result of poor interpretation, not knowing the background to the books of the Bible-basically, the arguments are arguments from ignorance.

For example, the very first thing on the site you gave:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/baptize.html

To set the example up...let's say you heard a news announcement saying "today the president said..."-but all you see is his secretary reading a speech. Now, do you think they're lying? No, because back then, as well as now, when a person does something in the name of a superior-it is as if the person is doing it himself. So, Jesus did in fact baptize through his disciples-while not personally doing it.

Also, another example that might help....my mom hired a constructor to build a room and fix up another one, and this guy employed, 5-6 men. Now, this guy was lazy, and he barely came, and she would say "Charlie didn't come and do this, or do that, ONCE again..." Now, does that mean his workers did it instead? No, because what his workers do, is considered to be what he is doing.

I cannot explain this using the correct words, I'm failing in that area, but hopefully you'll get what I'm saying. When a person does something in the name of someone else, it is as if that other person is doing it.

In some cases we can, others we can't. How much is enough? Rather important stories in the Bible, such as the flood, are lacking in historical truth. Yes, there was a flood, but it wasn't on a global scale. But as far as the writers of the bible were concerned, the known world did have a flood. If you happen to have evidence of a global flood it would be interesting to hear. So far the most convincing argument for this is marine fossils being found on top of mountains. Plate tectonics answers this phenomena.

Who's saying it was on a global scale? Many times when there are references to travesties affecting the WHOLE world...it means wherever man lives-like when the whole world suffers from a famine-it means where man is present. The known world did have a flood.

I'd like to know where these scientific statements are located in the Bible. The only ones I can find are false. The world isn't flat, pi isn't 3, bats aren't birds, etc.

The Bible doesn't teach that the Bible is flat, or that pi is 3, or that bats are birds. Please, no silly piddly crap. And while I'm at it, Europe did not in fact think the world was flat-Washington Irving and a Frenchman started the myth. A few church fathers did believe the world was flat through poor interpretations-...but Columbus only had a council meeting over the distance to Japan via the Atlantic.

As for the Cambrian Explosion, there was life prior to this event which just happened to occur over millions of years, not instantly.

This does not weaken the argument-in fact-I do indeed know this. Pop into the Cambrian Explosion thread in god and science for a minute...

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

there are no records of Jesus in Roman crucifixion records or any other secular records.

Uh, yes there are secular sources that mention Jesus.

http://members.aol.com/gunnyding/odds/odds.htm

Josephus and Tacitus.

Both of these sources were not alive during the time of Jesus. I don't see how their accounts are viable.

Also, do crucifixion records exist?

The romans kept great records. I don't think they can be found online. But I'll try.

The two historians of Alexander the Great lived five centuries after him. Doesn't really help your position. Luke, for example, went around and while he didn't witness a lot of what happenned (maybe he did, but assuming he didn't see most of what he wrote about)-he interviewed people and asked eyewitnesses, etc...

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Other sources:

A final consideration is that we have very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are:

An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.
An inscription that mentions Pilate.
Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.
Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.

From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.
From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16]
To this Meier adds [ibid., 23] that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." It is just as was said in his earlier comment on Alexander the Great: What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him! (For a response to a commonly-used list of writers who allegedly should have mentioned Jesus, see here.)

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

You seem to assume the past is like the present-that anyone who does anything important would be written about by millions of biographers, and that even infamous people would have biographies about them

Also, by what test do you ignore the authors of the New Testament and early church fathers? Just sticking to the authors of the New Testament, you have more historians writing about Jesus, a blip on the ancient world's radar screen...while you only have two guys who write about a man who conquered HUGE tracts of land...and they only pop up five centuries after his death.

The requirements you exact upon Christianity would drown all accounts of any historical person or event.

[Judah]

One of the key things for me was the solution God offered for the problem of humankind's "moral guilt".
There is an excellent chapter in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity on this subject, and it was during my reading of this chapter that everything began to take shape for me.

I tried to find this particular chapter concerning moral guilt online, but only found selective quotes. I would be deeply concerned if he was trying to imply that people who don't believe in God lack morals. This sort of statement would lead to the Euthyphro Dilemma. I know he was atheist at one point in his life, so he probably wasn't implying that morals are only a religious phenomena. Truthfully, and slightly ironic, my disagreement with C.S. Lewis's logic is what first started my questioning. It would be interesting to look at what he thinks is "moral guilt." I don't know, so I can only guess. My guess is that he is implying that man walks around with an unknown build up of guilt when he has not yet accepted God. Maybe he is implying that it's a built in concept of feeling guilty because the person doesn't believe in God. I find both of these reasons a bit far stretched. I'll wait to comment further when I know what he was actually talking about.

As for your experiences which all of a sudden lead you back to Christianity. I don't doubt them, but they were kind of what I was expecting. In my opinion, personal reasons for being a Christian are good for the individual but do nothing for others.

I know this is back-tracking a little as the discussion has since progressed, but I did want to respond to this post for the sake of completeness.

I think it is probably best to read the actual chapter in Mere Christianity for yourself rather than accept anyone's summary or paraphrase of it. Also, it is part of the whole book and often it is better to read the chapter in context rather than just on its own. However, I will say that your suggested possible reasons are not accurate.
I don't know where, if it is, that it might be available on-line.
There is a C.S. Lewis website (click here) if you want to look further.
But it is only a little paperback and probably not expensive to purchase, or it may well be available through a library.

When I read it and found it pulled many things together for me, it was not actually the first time I had read it. I had read the book a number of years earlier and it did not mean much to me then. I think it is important to take into account that it's impact on me was also due to other things happening in my life at the time. I had also done a great deal of other reading of a variety of reputable authors, plus been involved in a lot of discussion.
People in education and psychology fields will talk about "readiness" as an important factor in how we learn or construct our ideas and beliefs.
I was "ready" in a way that it fitted where I was at, and since we are all "at" different places at different times I am well aware that it may not have exactly the same effect on you as it did on me.
(BTW, I am not suggesting any hierachial order of readiness, nor that there is any competitiveness about such a process.)

And that leads into another point that I would like to make.

One of the reasons that my first post to this thread was so abbreviated is that I know very well that what reasons and arguments and experiences convince one person do not necessarily convince the next person.
I shared my story with you through my website and the testimony thread on here, but I did not expect you to be convinced by my personal experiences per se.
I fully realize that you will need to come to your own decisions yourself based on what makes most sense to you, or fits with your experiences in life.
The sharing that we do here, both of information (questions and responses) and experiences, are all very valuable - but in the end it will be yourself to put it together in the way that fits your own uniqueness and your own journey with God.

Back to KMart and others...

[LV_Designs]

While trying to come across a source concerning Roman Records, I came across this essay: http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... jesus.html
It is very well written and clears up the points I have been trying to make. The following is from the essay mentioned above:

Let us place ourselves entirely in the hands of the evidence. As far as possible, let us, be passive, showing no predisposition one way or another. We can afford to be independent. If the evidence proves the historicity of Jesus, well and good; if the evidence is not sufficient to prove it, there is no reason why we should fear to say so; besides, it is our duty to inform ourselves on this question. As intelligent beings we desire to know whether this Jesus, whose worship is not only costing the world millions of the people's money, but which is also drawing to his service the time, the energies, the affection, the devotion, and the labor of humanity, -- is a myth, or a reality. We believe that an religious persecutions, all sectarian wars, hatreds and intolerance, which still cramp and embitter our humanity, would be replaced by love and brotherhood, if the sects could be made to see that the God- Jesus they are quarreling over is a myth, a shadow to which credulity alone gives substance. Like people who have been fighting in the dark, fearing some danger, the sects, once relieved of the thraldom of a tradition which has been handed down to them by a childish age and country, will turn around and embrace one another. In every sense, the subject is an all-absorbing one. It goes to the root of things; it touches the vital parts, and it means life or death to the Christian religion.
___________

In examining the evidence from profane writers we must remember that the silence of one contemporary author is more important than the supposed testimony of another. There was living in the same time with Jesus a great Jewish scholar by the name of Philo. He was an Alexandrian Jew, and he visited Jerusalem while Jesus was teaching and working miracles in the holy city. Yet Philo in all his works never once mentions Jesus. He does not seem to have heard of him. He could not have helped mentioning him if he had really seen him or heard of him. In one place in his works Philo is describing the difference between two Jewish names, Hosea and Jesus. Jesus he says, means Savior of the people. What a fine opportunity for him to have said that, at that very time, there was living in Jerusalem a savior by the name of Jesus, or one supposed to be, or claiming to be, a savior. He could not have helped mentioning Jesus if he had ever seen or heard of him.
____________

The quotation from Tacitus is an important one. That part of the passage which concerns us is something like this: "They have their denomination from Chrestus, put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius." I wish to say in the first place that this passage is not in the History of Tacitus, known to the ancients, but in his Annals, which is not quoted by any ancient writer. The Annals of Tacitus were not known to be in existence until the year 1468. An English writer, Mr. Ross, has undertaken, in an interesting volume, to show that the Annals were forged by an Italian, Bracciolini. I am not competent to say whether or not Mr. Ross proves his point. But is it conceivable that the early Christians would have ignored so valuable a testimony had they known of its existence, and would they not have known of it had it really existed? The Christian Fathers, who not only collected assiduously all that they could use to establish the reality of Jesus -- but who did not hesitate even to forge passages, to invent documents, and also to destroy the testimony of witnesses unfavorable to their cause -- would have certainly used the Tacitus passage had it been in existence in their day. Not one of the Christian Fathers in his controversy with the unbelievers has quoted the passage from Tacitus, which passage is the church's strongest proof of the historicity of Jesus, outside the gospels.

But, to begin with, this passage has the appearance, at least, of being penned by a Christian. It speaks of such persecutions of the Christians in Rome which contradict all that we know of Roman civilization. The abuse of Christians in the same passage may have been introduced purposely to cover up the identity of the writer, The terrible outrages against the Christians mentioned in the text from Tacitus are supposed to have taken place in the year 64 A.D. According to the New Testament, Paul was in Rome from the year 63 to the year 65, and must, therefore, have been an eye-witness of the persecution under Nero. Let me quote from the Bible to show that there could have been no such persecution as the Tacitus passage describes. The last verse in the book of Acts reads: "And he (Paul) abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling, and received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none forbidding him." How is this picture of peace and tranquility to be reconciled with the charge that the Romans rolled up the Christians in straw mats and burned them to illuminate the streets at night, and also that the lions were let loose upon the disciples of Jesus?

Moreover, it is generally known that the Romans were indifferent to religious propaganda, and never persecuted any sect or party in the name of religion. In Rome, the Jews were free to be Jews; why should the Jewish Christians -- and the early Christians were Jews -- have been thrown to the lions? In all probability the persecutions were much milder than the Tacitus passage describes, and politics was the real cause.

Additionally, I would like to apologize for saying that the Romans would have had records of Jesus. This is what I did find out about them. Although they did keep records, they wouldn't have cared about the crucifixion of a carpenter, so it wouldn't be in the records anyway.

[LV_Designs]

I think it is probably best to read the actual chapter in Mere Christianity for yourself rather than accept anyone's summary or paraphrase of it. Also, it is part of the whole book and often it is better to read the chapter in context rather than just on its own. However, I will say that your suggested possible reasons are not accurate.
I don't know where, if it is, that it might be available on-line.
There is a C.S. Lewis website (click here) if you want to look further.
But it is only a little paperback and probably not expensive to purchase, or it may well be available through a library.

Yes, it is always best to read the whole book when possible. I definatly wouldn't just take someone's word for it. On the C.S. Lewis website is a review of the book. Although I can't say what my thoughts would be about Mere Christianity, I had similar thoughts when reading The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life. The book actually comes off as being biased towards Lewis, this is mainly because Freud is an unhappy and depressed atheist. Maybe they could have found a better example. I would like to see the book written again by comparing Lewis (or other avid Christian) to Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has a positive outlook on the world and finds much wonder in nature.

[Kurieuo]

The article talked about God generically but was obviously implying the Christian God. There are people who believe in other versions of a monotheistic god, as well as those who believe is many gods. Some people believe in God but don't ascribe to a particular religion. Even some Buddhists believe in a god. Although the article did a good job in making it's point, it seemed to exclude anyone who was not raised as a Christian.

You appear to have missed the point of the article. That is, you missed the point of the article which goes against your claim "the bible says that you have to accept christ as the savior in order to be forgiven of sins and go do heaven." Despite your earlier plea, "I am very familar with Christianity, I don't need a lesson", if appears perhaps you do need a few lessons. If not, then for what purpose are you here?

The Bible is self contradictory.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
To throw out most of the contradictions you have to completely disregard the Old Testament.

Ahh, it's becoming obvious isn't it? Your questions aren't really wanting to know why we believe, for you think you already know. As for this issue you make regarding Scripture, it is one to be debated not declared, especially on this particular board. It involves many concepts, and there are many issues to be covered... and I personaly strongly doubt you really understand what is incorporated into the concept of Biblical inerrancy, that is, with things such as the Chicago statement and so forth. I will quite clearly state I have have an inerrantist position that I base on a positive grounds that I have not come across any particular "error" or "contradiction" I couldn't resolve, or accept without reasonable doubt. And unless you wish to call me deluded or stupid regarding the OT, I do not disregard the OT at all but take its words seriously employing hermenuetics I believe to be valid and correct.

Yet, you miss the point if you think the Bible is why Christians believe. There are many Christians do not hold to the Bible's inerrancy, and this has no impact on the validity of Christ. I'd say there are also many Bible believers who sadly do not even have an understanding of the Bible beyond what they have been taught by their pastor or others around them. So if this is the case, then the Bible isn't really the reason "why" they believe.

That said, if we treat the NT books as historical texts rather than religious, then we have very strong rational evidence for believing in Christ. I'd also refer you to a thread on the old board, William Lane Craig's Argument for Jesus' Resurrection which goes through much evidence for accepting Christ's life and resurrection.

Kurieuo

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The article claims no bias...but it's right there in the beginning: IF ONE HISTORIAN DOES NOT MENTION IT-it does away with what an army of historian say.

What was Philo interested in? Come on, these historians weren't paid for this, so they only kept up with the stuff they liked-like Josephus was concerned with Rome any anything that concern Rome in any way-so some Jew who wasn't calling for the downfall of Rome would not be bothered.

According to the New Testament, Paul was in Rome from the year 63 to the year 65, and must, therefore, have been an eye-witness of the persecution under Nero. Let me quote from the Bible to show that there could have been no such persecution as the Tacitus passage describes. The last verse in the book of Acts reads: "And he (Paul) abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling, and received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none forbidding him." How is this picture of peace and tranquility to be reconciled with the charge that the Romans rolled up the Christians in straw mats and burned them to illuminate the streets at night, and also that the lions were let loose upon the disciples of Jesus?

His head was removed from the rest of his body, if you haven't noticed.

Moreover, it is generally known that the Romans were indifferent to religious propaganda, and never persecuted any sect or party in the name of religion. In Rome, the Jews were free to be Jews; why should the Jewish Christians -- and the early Christians were Jews -- have been thrown to the lions? In all probability the persecutions were much milder than the Tacitus passage describes, and politics was the real cause.

Yes and no-the Romans accepted any god they ran into, just to make sure they didn't tick anyone off-but Christianity was different from other religions. Normally, you could believe in Jupiter, but could also believe in a river god in barbarian lands that you were invading-but Christianity says that there are no other Gods-Jupiter, as well as the river god, do not exist. (History Channel is of some use).

Your article claims no bias...should have been a sure sign it was. :-p

[Kurieuo]

Your article claims no bias...should have been a sure sign it was. :-p