Having been married for 42 years (this month) I can confidently assert that marriage absolutely proves that both sides of the “Does God exist?” debate have an extremely strong case for their side of the question.....
Arguing about the value of religion with the charlatans of the same in mind, is understandable but misguided, even though the charlatans should be purged. I am not so sure that much of the arguments against religion and there by God are in the spirit of public service for the good of humanity. Socialist leaning governments have for years down played religion and even banned it. This is always seen as necessary to be viewed by the population as the givers of rights and give the priest of government (the representatives) of the people the positions of power sufficient to pander to the people. The opposite of this view, was beautifully lay down by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, with the line; we are all endowed by our creator with unalienable rights... Then Madison backed this up with a Constitution designed to protect those rights as suggested by Jefferson in the DI. As I see it, the battle is on going and continuous struggle; between those that will be free individuals, to pursue happiness as their God given right, and those that say hokum, our rights come from government. We need government, the only way we have any rights, and protection from the predictors. I think they do argue against religion in order to weaken the faith, of free individuals with god given rights. Better yet convert people to their replacement, government with promise of more rights. People are urged to join with catchy phrases; It takes a village! No child left behind! Health Care is a Right! Oh there are many. Not so many reminding the free individuals though.
I doubt it too. But if just 1 reader recognizes their need for a savior then any ridicule i may get is worth it.
And religion doesn't urge people to join with catchy phrases? 72 virgins is certainly pretty catchy. barfo
I've always believed Jesus and his followers were all normal people that created a cult to try and gain power over others. Had his followers write passages and compiled the Bible. Would make sense why some would want him gone, but instead of for some sort of holy reason, it was because his cult was dangerous.
And most of the apostles as well as jesus suffered horrific torture because they wanted to control people? How can you control people if you are dead? I dont think you thought this through...
I was just about to ask...the Torah had been around almost 1500 years by the time Jesus showed up. The New Testament was written between 20 (Mark) and 60 (Revelation) years after his death. Compiled in its fullest modern form after Nicea, 280 years or so after his death...How was he controlling a cult on this?
When studying a timeline and occurrences from ~2000 years ago, everything's murky. There's so much subjectivity that people can morph things into however they want to believe they were. I think logically... Or at least it just makes more logical sense to me that the dude was a type of cult-leader than a Messiah. Stories from a time that long ago have no ability to be validated. "He was tortured to no end" yada yada... Could've been something that didn't really happen but him and/or his followers pushed for various reason. I know many religious people that would be offended by this, but my belief is just as valid as theirs. No physical proof. Religion is often a belief system that is inherited as well. If your parents are Mormon, you're more likely to be Mormon. I hate the recruitment-style tactics of religions as well... That part seems extremely cult-ish to me as well, or at least valuing money as much as the religion. I echo @Natebishop3's sentiments on this.
There are multiple sources of non-Christian historical scholars and archaeologists who have stated that the historicity of the biblical record, especially as it relates to the Gospels and New Testament, is pretty legit. There are very few credible scholars who doubt that, in the early 30's AD, there was an itinerant preacher named Jesus of Nazareth whose followers thought that he performed miracles. Almost nobody credible disagrees that said itinerant preacher was sentenced to crucifixion by a joint Roman/Judaic trial. And many of the stories (myths?) about his followers are in multiple books of high historical regard. Now, whether he was the Son of God, rose bodily into Heaven after his death and entombment and gave the Holy Spirit to all believers? People will debate that until the Last Days. But whether the apostles actually lived, and suffered torture (in their words) "for the sake of the Gospel"? Yeah, that's pretty well documented. If you're really curious I can give you a ton of books to check out.
I'm not offended by this, because I've been where you've been, but you haven't been where I've been. And I'd say that irreligion is much easier to inherit and propogate than a belief system. If your parents aren't every-Sabbath-attending members of a solid, biblical-foundational local church whose preaching both edifies and points out your need for a Savior, then you're much more likely to either a) be irreligious yourself or b) come across the Holy Spirit at a time when one of those pesky cult recruiters comes along and see the light.
As a sort of bystander, perhaps just one that compares religion(s) and the alternatives. I find those that oppose the teaching of Jesus to be more of and organised cult than any honest church that leads their people to follow his teachings. The Christian has proven to be more my bother, than any that would silence, restrict, and force them to conform.
Hostory book bro. Try reading one. Even Josephus who absolutely despised Jesus wrote about his death. Little did he know he was confirming biblical accounts, not refuting them.
