/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

It's part of the Fall of Man.

"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

>>252231

Can you elaborate more? I don't see how believing in something you can't be sure about is a virtue.

>>252234

>I don't see how believing in something you can't be sure about is a virtue.

we can't be sure about most things in life; the human mind is veiled in uncertainty and with our strong imagination we can doubt basically anything.

The question about God is something you have to consider carefully, for virtue itself depends on God. When you look at what Christ taught and how he lived it should resonate with your nature and conscience. If he offends you then look elsewhere, or study him more carefully… "And blessed is the one who is not offended by me."

>>252240

I don't I'm offended by Jesus, but I also don't see any reason to think of him as more than Buddha or Confuncious for example.

>>252247

do you practice any religion?

There is much evidence left behind, but if close your eyes from it you are also not willing to talk about them.

Because people would still not believe. I kid you not, many people could see an angel appear before them and say “Praised be the Lord Jesus Christ!” and still not believe. They would invent a complete bullshit excuse to justify them like:

• it was an alien;

• I am hallucinating;

• I am the subject of a mind control experiment;

• I actually saw a demon and should keep being a Muslim/Jew.

Another argument is that if God was too obvious, we would serve him out of fear rather than love.

Things are pretty simple: if you want to find God, look for him. If you are sincere and not just another fedorapunk seeking any occasion to tip, you will find Him one way or another. Also, there are crystal clear prophecies that have been rigorously fulfilled (such as those on the fall of Babylon and Tyre).

>>252268

You forget the complex excuse would be angels because that implies gods, demons, angels, walking on water, global floods, arks with thousands of animals thousands of years ago, miracles, parting seas, virgin births, zombies coming back from death, serpents, souls, and all kinds of nonsense that you don't think about.

I've love to believe in angels too but I'm not eight years old.

>>252268

It's good to be skeptical, even for Christians, because Satan can appear as an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11:14

>>252234

You can't be sure of anything.

>>252247

Because you knw nothing about religion.

>>252278

>You can't be sure of anything.

you can be sure of anything actually, being sure just means you lack doubt, it's a psychological state anyone can adopt through practice or conditioning.

but certainty doesn't really mean anything in itself other than subjective conviction.

Read 1 corinthians chapter 1-2

>>252259

I don't. I was raised a catholic but I don't practice anymore. I think having faith is a good thing overall (many people do charity and stuff because of that), but it's not reason enough to dedicate my life to it.

>>252262

But every religion has miracles anon.

>>252266

Tell me more.

>>252268

Things would be much more straightforward if every person had their own personal revelation, don't you think? Some of them could still be skeptical, but I find it hard to believe that nobody else would convert.

>if you want to find God, look for him

I'm open to the idea of God, but I think if he wanted me to have faith he would have made things simpler.

>>252278

>Because you knw nothing about religion.

Explain further

>>252304

>13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”[d] But we have the mind of Christ.

What you have to do to be a "person with the spirit"?

>>252272

Satan can disguise himself as an angel, but the one thing he would never say is that Jesus is God.

>>252307

>What you have to do to be a "person with the spirit"?

Get saved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDEBz25lGdY

>>252329

Absolute nonsense.

>>252230

What more do you want? The Bible is full of scientific and historical proof can be seen even to this day.

Only experiencing life and hearing the word of God can convince you to believe.

>>252268

Exactly, you can't satisfy everyone.

>>252307

> I was raised a catholic but I don't practice anymore

Catholicism made me an atheist for a time because they make stuff up and justify it the same way Muslims as though there was new doctrine after Jesus.

>But every religion has miracles anon.

Like? I mean there are plenty of fake Christian Miracles.

>I'm open to the idea of God, but I think if he wanted me to have faith he would have made things simpler.

I get what you mean, but isn't that the same as the "If God is real why are there bad things" argument? Look for God and you will find him.

>>252230

Because God's goal isn't to have everyone subscribe to a particular religous denomination but to bring people towards the light, to make them pure of heart and peacemakers.

We already have the divine laws written in our hearts, but in our fallen state we forget and get confused. When you read the New Testament it should resonate with what is good in you and guide you toward the light.

salvation is based on faith, not evidence. even if there was 100% evidence, you still wouldn't be saved because you have no faith

>>252230

Why bother? Whenever evidence is found, people just dismiss it out of hand. Even in Jesus Christ's time, when literal God was walking around raising people from the dead people just ignored it and claimed He was a fake. Most non-believers still wouldn't believe if there was more evidence, so there's no point in planting any more than there already is.

There is literally no reason to not be a theist, the evidence is irrefutable. You can figure out that Christianity is the true religion looking at the evidence.

>>252535

The point is that there can be no 'evidence' that compels reason to certainty. There is nothing higher God can appeal to to prove his existence.

Every appearance we see on earth can be a trick, illusion, demon, a fraud, etc.

The only way to get to God is via faith which exists in the heart; it isn't an argument or a science or something intellectual .

>>252230

Imagine you were God. What kind of evidence would you leave behind?

Anything can be and will be dismissed as fake. This happened back in ancient times and it will happen now. Expecting some sort of physical evidence saying "God was here" shows you haven't really thought about this.

>>252547

Good Christians become immune to snake poisons.

Priests can heal the sick with prayer and laying on of hands similar success as a doctor using medicine. Fake priests and priests of other religions cant.

When analyzing the Eucharist scientists find a unique genetic code with only matriarchal dna, no dna from a father…within that code the Gospels are written. :)

The orthodox/catholic schism would be prevented by an angel coming to a council and reconciling their theological differences .

Every time a pope is elected a soothing trumpet sound is heard all over the world.

Just little things that add up…and form pleasant patterns.

>>252553

*I'm not saying that's how things are now lol. But they could help show that Christianity is unlike other religions and superior and effective . and thus confirm its ideas about God

Watch this, brah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ

>>252230

Because he left more than enough already

>>252553

>When analyzing the Eucharist scientists find a unique genetic code with only matriarchal dna, no dna from a father…within that code the Gospels are written.

I would love to see evidence for this. Never heard of it before.

>>252230

No point.

The point is that believing in God is something that sounds crazy on paper because it kind of is.

God gave you life and free will he ain't finding you, you'll have to find him.

But be happy because you've hear his word. I feel sorry for people who die and never heard of him.

>>252576

he isn't saying it's true, he's just responding to >>252547

>"Imagine you were God. What kind of evidence would you leave behind?"

>>252230

The fact that you're on 8chan most likely means that you've seen this video before, but you should watch it again. Towards the end, he explains why it's so important for people to have faith in something that they cannot prove.

>>252576

I think he's talking about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i0RBDRnwAo

>>252576

oh wait I think he wasn't talking about this lol, I misread >>252699

Well, you'll find the video interesting either way I think

He did, He literally dwelt among us. It still wasn't good enough for you. They saw His miracles before their eyes and still didn't believe them. What should He do? Come down every 5 years just to make sure everybody sees Him again and again?

It still wouldn't be enough because you people are completely implacable. God tells us this about you in Romans 1:31. You are so full of pride that you refuse to see God's creation all around you, even as it smacks you in the face, you refuse to see the pain you've created for yourself by turning away from God, just because you are too proud to venerate anything above yourself.

>>252719

> What should He do?

this >>252553

> You are so full of pride that you refuse to see God's creation all around you

the problem isn't God's existence, the problem was religions trying to monopolize God for themselves, claiming they have a patent on the Truth and it's "my way or the high way." They boast and puff up their chests but at the end of the day they expect people to believe by faith, by scripture, by historicity, by word of mouth…the middle-man is always human telling a story, a nice story, a great story.

religions that can't be tested and rely on the "authority of the prophet" need a way to justify themselves from other religions. If Christians could actually become immune to literal poison like Mark 16:18 says, then they would have a HUGE leg up over muslims and mormons and so many other religions.

>>252743

>There are many claims of miracles related to the saints.

vague, statistical anomalies.

I would make it so that every born-again Christian would be immune to poison, so that it was a normal thing. When a muslim sees a person get bit by a cobra and shrug it off, he'd instantly think "oh he must be a Christian…hmm"

>But the church, nor scripture, assert that it is truly the priests doing such things. Why would that be needed specifically? All miracles come from God.

Any christian could do them I suppose. Point is that there would be some objective, measurable difference between followers of Christ, and other humans.

>Eucharist doesn't change in a biological form. See: Transubstantiation.

I would make it change in cellular structure as well. Then protestants could go saying "it's just symbolic lol it don't matter"

But more importantly the scientists and skeptics would be very intrigued. Specially when they see the gospels imprinted in that genetic code.

>Would be nice.

>muh random shit

ehh, I would sprinkle many gifts around the world, objective things, measurable things, observable things, that could help draw people to the "true religion" and away from false religions.

things that have a repeatable and observable pattern, otherwise they are just hearsay and anomalies.

>>252234

It's not

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism#Fideism_rejected_by_the_Catholic_Church

>>252853

>No signs

Then I would recommend watching any of Hugh Ross videos. He's a Christian-apologist astrophysicist that argues Genesis and the book of Job are accurate in depicting the events of creation.

Either that, or Job 38-39

Well there wouldn't be a need for hell if everybody knew that God existed, would there?

>>254022

I'm sure there are non-ironic Satanists that believe God exists but decide to rebel like demons anyways.

>>252549

But God is all powerful.

Even if I can't think of something that God could do to reliably convince me he exists, I'm sure that the omniscient God could think of something that would convince me without a doubt that he exists.

>>252230

Weak on Christianity here, tell me if I am wrong.

If we had enough proof that god exist and that Jesus did miracles and you know the rest, do you really think that we would believe in the LORD?

No, we would KNOW or ACKNOWLEDGE everything about Christianity. Christianity would be a FACT.

Faith is BELIEVING in something that you can't prove at 100%.

BELIEVING in something requires way more faith than simply KNOWING that something is real and needing proofs to do so.

Like having trust.

>>257169

Using that many capital letters just makes your points less credible.

>>257169

Instead of all-caps for emphasis, on 8ch you can use bold, italics, or underscore. It's a brave new world, yo.

Here is the real question.

Why did God hide dinosaur bones everywhere. It's like he is trying to screw with us and test our fate.

>>257189

God didn't, the dinosaurs did.

>>252230

Evidence is hard to see when you're blind

>>257221

>I am actually not sure what other evidence there could be.

Would've been nice if God preserved the original gospel manuscripts for us, signed and dated by the authors. Instead we only have copies of copies of copies: tiny papyri fragments, dated centuries after the events, anonymously written, no signatures. Not only that but they have thousands of textual variants between them, some minor (spelling/name mistakes), some major (entire words and phrases missing or changed).

That would be one thing, preservation of the original manuscripts in their entire form, so that scribes and readers could compare their translation to the originals.

Next could be some archaeological evidence to support the story, tombs for the apostles with relevant inscriptions on them. Neat stuff like that.

>>257622

Even if we had all those things, I guaran-damn-tee you that you'd still be questioning Christianity with at least the same amount of skepticism.

>>257628

>I guaran-damn-tee you that you'd still be questioning Christianity with at least the same amount of skepticism.

why do you think so?

>>257622

But my friend there is only one ideal version and that is the one based on the Greek septuagint, this is confirmed by The Orthodox Church m8.

Other than that translations is just something unavoidable.

>>257649

>And the Bible has told us that there were even people scoffing at Jesus when he was performing miracles in front of their very eyes. Doubters will be doubters.

I'm not a hardcore skeptic though.

>>257622

>signed and dated

You could just say "someone scribbled it on there" and there is no real way to dispute it one way or the other.

>original manuscript

Considering that there had to be an original manuscript at some point for each book, we DID have one, but as humans are prone to do, we were careless or neglectful in some way and lost them.

>tombs with inscriptions

This wouldn't really help, because one of the most convincing pieces of evidence for the testimonies of the apostles was that they were willing to be persecuted and executed in sometimes brutal ways for their beliefs, ones that they were not willing to give up. These beliefs often being specifically that Christ rose and they met with Him.

If they all died in some nice and neat way which then they were able to have tombs bought for them with nice inscriptions (which I don't see how this would be anymore convincing, to be totally open), we'd lose the far more powerful piece of evidence.

>>257673

>You could just say "someone scribbled it on there" and there is no real way to dispute it

But at least I'd have the original so I could read it for myself and judge. Again I'm not a hardcore skeptic, I just don't like to be duped and the manuscripts we have now are really not good, not consistent with each other, and mostly anonymous.

>but as humans are prone to do, we were careless or neglectful in some way and lost them.

like I said, it would've been nice if God preserved his original word for us.

I'm sure he could've managed it somehow, despite our human foibles.

>the apostles was that they were willing to be persecuted and executed in sometimes brutal ways for their beliefs, ones that they were not willing to give up. These beliefs often being specifically that Christ rose and they met with Him.

Well their enemies or a third-party could've recorded these deaths. Christians could've made vigils and empty-tombs for them, and God could've preserved them into posterity. I dunno, I'm just spitting ideas. It would be nice if we had some third-party corroboration from jews or christians or romans, that doesn't qualify as "sacred holy scripture" but just good historical writing.

There is plenty of evidence including but not limited to the light of creation, the light of consciousness - Romans 1:20 ; Romans 2:14-15 . But also manuscripts, archaeology, prophecy and science.

>>257675

Isn't Jesus in the Talmud? The "sorcerer Yeshu" who got executed for "sorcery" (what we'd refer to as miracles). They even mentioned some of his disciples, as far as I'm aware, and it corroborates with the Gospels.

>>257675

Besides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rml5Cif01g4&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY

>>257695

>Isn't Jesus in the Talmud?

Those writings come 500+ years after Christ. It would've been nice if they wrote something about him around 1st century, but they didn't.

>>257696

I read Bart Ehrman's work and seen him debate James White; the historicity of the New Testament isn't good. The Old Testament is even worse.

In terms of quantity, the New Testament is represented far more than any other piece of ancient literature. Consider the known manuscripts of four well known Greek and Roman works: Homer was the earliest and most popular author of the ancient Greek world. His book, The Illiad, dates to 750 BC. To date, 647 manuscripts of this book have been found. Only 190 contain a complete copy. When compared to other classical Greek writing, Homer’s work is an exception. Copies of his work are much more plentiful than other ancient books. For example, Caesar’s Gallic War, dates to 50 BC. Only 9-10 manuscripts exist with the earliest copy dating to 900 AD. Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War dates to 450 BC. Eight manuscripts have been found with the earliest copy dating to 900 AD. (There are some fragments of this book that date to the time of Jesus.) Finally, Tacitus’ Histories was written in 100 AD. Only two manuscripts are available. One dates to 800 AD, the other to 1000 AD.

In light of this, the number of ancient writings containing the New Testament is staggering. To date, over 5800 Greek New Testament fragments have been found (Taylor, 2012). Over 10,000 Latin New Testament manuscripts dating from the 2nd to 16th century have been located. The earliest are in fragments that cover a substantial amount of the New Testament. Some manuscripts have also been found in a number of other languages, including Coptic, Syriac, Gothic, and Arabic. Taking all languages together, over 25,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament have been recovered. But there is more. Almost the entire New Testament could be reproduced by quotes from the ancient church fathers. “So extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament” (Metzger & Ehrman, 2005). – http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

>>257763

>In terms of quantity, the New Testament is represented far more than any other piece of ancient literature

This doesn't excuse how awful its historicity is, and how many problems we have with it as I mentioned above.

>When compared to other old stuff

Yes all texts from the ancient world aren't very reliable, and haven't been preserved well; definitely not things we should gamble our souls on.

>Ehrman, 2005

>quoting Ehrman to support Biblical historicity

He lost his faith due to his biblical scholarship and historical analysis. He's probably among the top 3 scholars in the world now. And he convinced me that the historical record for the new testament is not reliable.

No one is ' gambling their soul ' based on a reality that is revealed in many different ways.

>>257770

you quoted Ehrman as well. Does this make your opinion invalid? The source it is linked to shows some manuscript and dating.

>>257820

>you quoted Ehrman as well. Does this make your opinion invalid?

What? He's a valid source. He just argues the exact opposite of what you want him to say. You realize this, right? The conclusion he came to after researching the manuscripts is not positive, it's entirely negative. They aren't reliable.

>Almost the entire New Testament could be reproduced by quotes from the ancient church fathers

Ya we can reconstruct our current NT, the problem is it's based on forgeries, anonymous copies of copies that are riddled with errors, according to Ehrman and scholars. So what? The Church Fathers 400 years after Christ are quoting forgeries dated to 250 years after Christ. And? This doesn't solve the essential problem.

>>257854

then quote from your memory anything from your past or another like a historical figure. and then go ask another to do the same, write them down and see how close you are to being factual. Yes there have been found textual errors, and more and more these textual errors get corrected or annotated in newer transliterations. Not one of the errors found changes the story of one God creating the heavens and the earth and man, man's fall into sin from grace, and the rest is God's redemptive plan, culminating in the fullness of His son, Jesus Christ.

Because he wants us to love him enough to follow him by what He left. If he left too much evidence no one would be able to deny the truth and many undeserving people would enter. There can be no sin in heaven so only those who are of a right mind toward God are allowed.

Why didn't no god leave more evidence for nothing?

>>252547

A 500-meter tall, smooth, onyx monolith on every continent detailing my persona, the creation process and wishes for the one species of primates that's special for some reason in every spoken language. Said monolith would change automatically to accommodate the rise and death of new languages and dialects and would be indestructible by conventional means because of some underlying physical principle we know nothing of yet. Blu-Ray discs of the same as above hidden in vaults around the world which also contain 4k video footage of miracles (popping black holes and planets in and out of existence, tossing a celestial baseball from the Moon to Mars and back faster than the speed of light, raising all the water from the Earth's seas, writing I AM GOD LOL with it in orbit and putting it all back etc). Anyone who claims "lol wouldn't believe anyway" is either mentally handicapped or just hasn't put the thought into it.

>>258504

Aliens did it…..

See how easy that was?

You might as well simply demand that God's face with an accompanying physical presence be in full view at all times.

We're imperfect and we can't know all. This means we also need to rely on faith. If we can't know all, then we can't know God, but find him through faith. A man who rationally believes in God or rationally disbelieves is sick.

>>252269

angels do exist? Now if you're a fedora okay whatever, I'll save that for another day…but the existence of angels is directly in scripture.

>>258504

sounds like aliens to me

Also: God could just remove our ability to doubt and force us all to believe in him without doubt by manipulating some brain matter.

And yet he allows doubt.

>>257100

But why should he go out of his way and do this for you? Of all the humans and different souls on this earth, his earth. Only way I could see your wish come true is if he literally spoke to your and you became a prophet. They are relics of the past though, written in the annules of history along with plenty of evidence that he is there. Do the waves upon waves of events in history, all influenced by the word of God not produce any faith for you?

>>258509

>You might as well simply demand that God's face with an accompanying physical presence be in full view at all times.

Well this certainly wouldn't be a negative.

>you will suffer forever for not having an ontological commitment to something you have no justifiable reason to believe exists

>>258542

If you're attempting to use apparent absence as an excuse, then you're operating upon an "apparent" fallacy since you're suggesting that conclusions of divine presence are impossible to discern despite the application of ontological empiricism. But the entire purpose of empiricism is that we draw conclusions based on probabilities derived from evidence without necessarily producing any material proof. We prove, for instance, that the theories of gravity and aerodynamics exist without the manifestation of physical indicators beyond the phenomena of groundedness and flight.

>>257100

He already created an entire universe with an accouterments of lifeforms the complexity of whom has only been observed in their own intelligently designed creations (e.g. computers).

What your argument amounts to is that God would produce a batch of evidence that you would have no choice but to acknowledge as truth. However, the principles of Free Will attributed to you by His power give you the option of stating doubt regardless of the antecedents. Else, you wouldn't truly have Free Will.

The curse of the skeptic's doctrine is the infinite capacity for questioning the integrity of everything we observe regardless of its self-evident characteristics. In theory, the queries can never truly end, and therefore all reality is compromised–-at least according to the skeptic. As such, if the skeptic questions some things but not others–despite the capacity for scrutiny–then he suffers from a materialistic bias that denies the general validity of the metaphysical.

or the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

reminder even the apostles doubted him; after seeing it all

signs are fakable (as predicted in scripture: the biggest proof you'll get)

>>252230

What evidence?

You want flashy miracles, pillars of fire and whirlwinds and angels materializing striking down devils with arrows of light?

How would that convince anyone to worship God?

People would be fixated on the awe of the spectacle. But would it inspire them to charity? They might have more outward contrition for their sin from fear of being slaughtered by an angel, but would it bring inner change?

God worked visible wonders among the Israelites. Many of them still turned to idolatry. That's typical of humans.

Thankfully, man can have knowledge of the true religion, via anamnesis. But this only comes through experience. You have to have the experience of living the faith to grasp its truth.

>>252230 theres plenty of evidence you just choose to ignore it because its more comfortable to wallow in your sins of porn