Question for the religious extremists (Jay etc)

[Napoleon Ier]

[ignotus]

As a religious extremist, I must say that things have been more difficult for us in the last 30-some years. When I wake up, my first intention is to oppress all those who don't believe like myself. This used to be an easy task, but now more and more college students have been alerted to our goals through their social science professors. We may be coming to the end of what has been a marvelous run. But if you believe in a cyclical view of history, then it's only a matter of time before we are able to make a comeback.

Dum Spiro Spero.

[unriggable]

By your argument, there shouldn't be any children raised in the hard cold light of atheism that turn to Christianity. Also, once a person is a reasonable, rationale adult, there should be little chance of them turning to Christ, but the fact is, that's not true. There are a lot of people born and raised in the church who stay there, but there are also a lot of people who turn to Christ later in life, a lot of times during or shortly after college, when their thinking about the direction their life is taking.

The majority of those raised religious do not change their views. I can't find a source as of yet but its something like 70% or more never change their religious background.

[unriggable]

If you were born of Islamic parents and brought up as a Muslim, would you still have the same beliefs in Jesus/God?

I think this is a stupid question.

Its a valid question. The answer is probably no. However, there is a very good story to illustrate my view as a religious extremist on the matter. A missionary working in CHina had explained the gospel to some natives, and they said to him, they had always known Jesus, but only not his name....in other words, we can unwittingly accept Jesus as Lord by leading lives according to our moral conscious, fostering and listening to it, since it is jesus speaking within us.

Heh. Luke 17:21. But close enough.

[Napoleon Ier]

No Bible quote intended, really...

[Snorri1234]

They're not the same - Jesus isn't the son of God in Islam, which is a pretty big difference IMO.


But in case there's any doubt I'll use a different religion - if you were brought up by parents who were Hindu, would you still believe the whole Chrstianity thing? Or is it more of a parental influence that makes you believe that particular fairy story? Sorry, holy book.

by the way jesus is true because the romans wrote about him, drew about him

Not so much, but that's by the by... Historical evidence has no bearing on his divinity either way...

We fall into the sheerly ridiculous

Huh, how is that ridiculous?

[Napoleon Ier]

Analysing the actions of the disciples after the Crucifixion is of huge historical bearing to the Divinity of Our Lord.

[Snorri1234]

Analysing the actions of the disciples after the Crucifixion is of huge historical bearing to the Divinity of Our Lord.

But it doesn't prove Jesus was divine. Historical evidence of jesus and what his friends did after his crucifixion has no bearing on determining whether he was divine.

[Napoleon Ier]

Analysing the actions of the disciples after the Crucifixion is of huge historical bearing to the Divinity of Our Lord.

But it doesn't prove Jesus was divine. Historical evidence of jesus and what his friends did after his crucifixion has no bearing on determining whether he was divine.

Doesn't prove it, but has huge bearing on it and is darn good evidencee for it.

[Snorri1234]

But it doesn't prove Jesus was divine. Historical evidence of jesus and what his friends did after his crucifixion has no bearing on determining whether he was divine.

Doesn't prove it, but has huge bearing on it and is darn good evidencee for it.

How is that? If you write in a book that some guy is divine, it isn't evidence for it.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Analysing the actions of the disciples after the Crucifixion is of huge historical bearing to the Divinity of Our Lord.

It only proves that they believed he was divine.

[bloknayrb]

As far as I'm aware, people are converting from one religion to another on a fairly steady basis, although I'd have to say that odds are if most people were raised a certain way they tend to stay that course.

Analysing the actions of the disciples after the Crucifixion is of huge historical bearing to the Divinity of Our Lord.

It only proves that they believed he was divine.

As for this... wasn't it down to a vote in the end?

[Guiscard]

Analysing the actions of the disciples after the Crucifixion is of huge historical bearing to the Divinity of Our Lord.

It only proves that they believed he was divine.

Exactly. It only proves they believed he was divine. Hundreds committed suicide in Millenarian cults on 1/1/00 because they believed their prophets to be divine. Is that evidence? The early history of Sikhism is littered with martyrs. Does that make Sikhism as 'true' as Christianity or does it just mean they believe in something?

[jay_a2j]

But it doesn't prove Jesus was divine. Historical evidence of jesus and what his friends did after his crucifixion has no bearing on determining whether he was divine.

Doesn't prove it, but has huge bearing on it and is darn good evidencee for it.

How is that? If you write in a book that some guy is divine, it isn't evidence for it.

If what was written is true, Jesus healing, raising the dead, walking on water etc... surely He is Divine.

[Snorri1234]

But it doesn't prove Jesus was divine. Historical evidence of jesus and what his friends did after his crucifixion has no bearing on determining whether he was divine.

Doesn't prove it, but has huge bearing on it and is darn good evidencee for it.

How is that? If you write in a book that some guy is divine, it isn't evidence for it.

If what was written is true, Jesus healing, raising the dead, walking on water etc... surely He is Divine.

Yes, if. But you cannot simply believe what a book claims is true because the books claims it is. Especially when dealing with the supernatural.

[Balsiefen]

quite a bit of this is going Off topic. this is about being braught up in an alternative religion. And i agree with luns about the title

I don't know what would happen. I just thank God the truth was revealed to me.

But surely if you were braught up a muslim, you would thank Allah just as decidedly that the truth was revieled to you and you dont believe what those foolish christians believe.

Edit: this thread seems to be targeted mostly at religions, however, i feel an atheist would proberbly be a sikh if he had different parents. you need a truly open minded household with all religions equally avalable to see which one actually comes naturally (and even then they would proberbly just become agnostic)

of course there are exeptions whare people braught up to be one thing switch to another (my grandad included in this) but that is only to be expected.

[bloknayrb]

Oh, and another thing. People are most knowledgeable (if at all) about the religions they were brought up with, simply because they've spent the most time (if any) studying their own religion, if they are in fact inclined to be religious. Logically, it would follow that if someone were identical to the way he is now, save for his religion, he would make equivalent choices effected by how he was brought up, not necessarily choosing the same religion at all. Also, a person can't really say that if he were, let's say, born a Muslim he would find Jesus anyway "because it's the truth," because he would've been brought up feeling... somewhat differently about the whole thing.
So really all this topic can actually accomplish is to be another debate thread about religion.

[Napoleon Ier]

But it doesn't prove Jesus was divine. Historical evidence of jesus and what his friends did after his crucifixion has no bearing on determining whether he was divine.

Doesn't prove it, but has huge bearing on it and is darn good evidencee for it.

How is that? If you write in a book that some guy is divine, it isn't evidence for it.

If what was written is true, Jesus healing, raising the dead, walking on water etc... surely He is Divine.

Yes, if. But you cannot simply believe what a book claims is true because the books claims it is. Especially when dealing with the supernatural.

Alright but it has huge historical significance. So rather than let your intellectual arrogance flowing from your intolerant extremist secular humanism carry you away, accept that the fact a number of historians reported miracles performed by Jesus (including independant observers) has huge historical significance. indeed, I know of many NT experts who converted based on what they considered to be historical evidence.

[Snorri1234]

Alright but it has huge historical significance. So rather than let your intellectual arrogance flowing from your intolerant extremist secular humanism carry you away, accept that the fact a number of historians reported miracles performed by Jesus (including independant observers) has huge historical significance. indeed, I know of many NT experts who converted based on what they considered to be historical evidence.

Ofcourse it has huge historical significane, I think something that shows how a cult of a few people grew out to be the worlds major religion would certainly be important.
But it has no bearing on his divinity.

[2dimes]

by the way jesus is true because the romans wrote about him, drew about him

Just like Jupiter, Mars, talking eagles, psychic ladies who lived in caves, and wolf-babies?

You don't believe in Jupiter and Mars? Please, continue.

[Snorri1234]

by the way jesus is true because the romans wrote about him, drew about him

Just like Jupiter, Mars, talking eagles, psychic ladies who lived in caves, and wolf-babies?

You don't believe in Jupiter and Mars? Please, continue.

I don't think the Roman gods are still widely worshipped. It's not that strange not to believe in them.

[comic boy]

But it doesn't prove Jesus was divine. Historical evidence of jesus and what his friends did after his crucifixion has no bearing on determining whether he was divine.

Doesn't prove it, but has huge bearing on it and is darn good evidencee for it.

How is that? If you write in a book that some guy is divine, it isn't evidence for it.

If what was written is true, Jesus healing, raising the dead, walking on water etc... surely He is Divine.

Yes, if. But you cannot simply believe what a book claims is true because the books claims it is. Especially when dealing with the supernatural.

Alright but it has huge historical significance. So rather than let your intellectual arrogance flowing from your intolerant extremist secular humanism carry you away, accept that the fact a number of historians reported miracles performed by Jesus (including independant observers) has huge historical significance. indeed, I know of many NT experts who converted based on what they considered to be historical evidence.

But I will warrant that a great many more historians rejected the so called evidence and did not convert.

[Dancing Mustard]

by the way jesus is true because the romans wrote about him, drew about him

Just like Jupiter, Mars, talking eagles, psychic ladies who lived in caves, and wolf-babies?

You don't believe in Jupiter and Mars? Please, continue.

I don't think the Roman gods are still widely worshipped. It's not that strange not to believe in them.

Yeah, what he said: Jupiter and Mars as in the Ancient Roman Gods (King of Gods, and God of War respectively). But then, the Romans wrote about the, and drew about them, so they must be true!!!!1!

[2dimes]

by the way jesus is true because the romans wrote about him, drew about him

Just like Jupiter, Mars, talking eagles, psychic ladies who lived in caves, and wolf-babies?

You don't believe in Jupiter and Mars? Please, continue.

I don't think the Roman gods are still widely worshipped. It's not that strange not to believe in them.

Yeah, what he said: Jupiter and Mars as in the Ancient Roman Gods (King of Gods, and God of War respectively). But then, the Romans wrote about the, and drew about them, so they must be true!!!!1!

Ok fair enough I'm too simple and ignorant to have seperated the "gods" from the planets that share their names however, I maintain that the romans wrote and drew about real persons and planets. Mars, Jupiter and Jesus of nazereth.

Since they probably did not write about Jesus being the son of the one true and living God, by your logic in this thread that's the true part and not that he was a just a person?

[Dancing Mustard]

Since they probably did not write about Jesus being the son of the one true and living God, by your logic in this thread that's the true part and not that he was a just a person?

Oh I'm not disputing that Jesus existed as a person... but I rather thought that the OP (whoever he was) was implying that Jesus was true and divine simply because the Romans mentioned him in some way. That's what I was poking fun at before serious business broke out.

To clarify in case I've made myself unclear here:
Do I dispute Jesus lived? No
Do I dispute he was divine? Yes, and Roman pictures aren't likely to change my mind, they chatted shit about a whole lot of barmy stuff.

Much Love, Goodnight.