Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I'm not sure why you say Christianity damages those who believe it. If you truly are converted and are saved, then your life will be reflected, and your life will change. As Christians, we are told to follow God's word by doing good deeds; also, we are commanded in the Bible to not do evil deeds. Although this does not prevent us from doing it, since we are fallen, we still , sort of try harder, although that doesn't really explain it...

And Cobalt, once again, I have to say, you're getting it all wrong. You're trying very hard to impose your own orthodox understanding on certain issues, and not even taking into regard that you might be wrong. As I have pointed out, there are plenty of Jews who do not share your orthodox understanding of the Torah, but instead recognize Jesus as the true Son of God, who did in fact die and rise again, demonstrating that he was Lord. You claim that what he did was sin. I answer that it was not.

You say he disrespected his mother in front of his disciples. I only remember him once asking her, "Woman, what does this have to do with me?" But that was because she did not understand what he was about to do - that is, he was about to be involved in his Father's business, which wasn't really her place (and as it was, she really didn't understand what he was going to do, BUT, to her credit, she trusted him). So I have a hard time understanding how asking his mother why she was telling him how to conduct his Father's business would be considered sin. But the funny thing is, while you claim Jesus disrespected her, I seem to remember Jesus condemning the Pharisees of his day for rejecting that commandment outright in favor of a custom known as Corban.

And as far as picking grain: they were essentially eating it off the stalk anyway, not performing a harvest. But according to the traditions of men (not the Word of God), that was to be considered work, and was not to be done. Jesus' answer? If David and his men were permitted by God to eat bread from the tabernacle (which was only permitted for the priests), then why shouldn't hungry men be allowed to eat wheat off the stalk on a Sabbath?

You say he killed an innocent fig tree. It was a tree that had not born any fruit, and if I remember correctly, a tree that did not bear fruit was not exempt from being destroyed.

You claim he physically attacked people. I remember him overturning tables in the temple and using a cord to drive people out of the temple court, where they should not have been conducting their business. He exercised force to cleanse the house of his Father from those who defiled it.


First of all, I never said that the Law was not in effect. Christ himself came to fulfill the Law, not to do away with it. However, there are certain aspects of that Law that do not apply to Gentiles, but some that do on account of Christ's own commands. One of them is the command, "Love the Lord your God," which Jesus himself says is the greatest among them (and not him alone, I believe it was Rabbi Gamaliel who said something very similar once). Nevertheless, the Prophets did foretell a time when all the earth would worship and obey the Lord God, so I would contend that it is not merely the knowledge that this God exists, but the impetus to serve him that was to be shared.


It's not merely my insistence, but his. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes unto the Father except by Me," and "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." If anything, you're the one doing damage by turning people away from him. If he is who he claims he is, then there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved. But if not, then, as you claim, it wouldn't make any difference if we're Christians, atheists, Buddhists, Jews, or whatever. In other words, if you're right, you're not really helping anyone. But if I'm right, then you're hurting, rather than helping.

_________________

Ah... did you add it after you originally posted? I only saw the post immediately after it was posted. (BTW, I edited it so that the quote feature worked correctly, and corrected "vane" to "vain". Hope you don't mind. )

That's not really the kind of response I wanted, though... not because it told me anything I didn't want to hear, but because it doesn't really answer my questions. Let's scrap the "never commits what God would consider a sin" part. I'm just trying to get the idea across of a general all-around really great guy.

OK, so you're saying that by not believing in God, our hypothetical really great guy is still disobeying some major commandments. But, again, I point out that he has reasons -- reasons that are far from frivolous -- for believing the way he does. That might not matter to God, but it certainly matters to the guy doing the believing. How would it even be possible for him to believe if things just don't add up for him when he looks at Christianity?

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Kef, everyone is bounded by Adam's sin too.

_________________

This still doesn't answer my questions...

_________________
404 sig not found

Well, that is unfortunate for him. But part of the problem might be that he relies too much on his own intuition, senses, or reason. There may be little by way of advice that I could offer such a person.

Nevertheless, I can't help but see that God expects us to trust him. Not trusting him is what put mankind in the predicament he's in now to start with. And from my own experience, not trusting him has at times put me in some real binds at certain key times in my life, when if I had simply followed and did what he commanded, I would have been much better off. This might be something that others on this board can understand as well. But this might just be because I already believe. And I will say this: my theology may be fully informed by the writings of the prophets and apostles, but my faith has been informed by my own experience, when I've seen God's hand at work in my own life, so to me, it is both intellectual and personal.

But as harsh as it may sound, my answer to your question is essentially the same answer that has been given to me:

What does all this mean? Basically this: God knows what he's doing. We don't. Unless we trust him. And even then, we're not given all the answers.

_________________

What else is there for him to rely on? After all, Christianity isn't the only religion out there. To him, it's another face in the crowd. Sure, the believers have all this 'evidence' to back up their beliefs, but so does everybody else... whatever the right choice is, it isn't to just pick the first religion he comes across, or the one that looks most appealing to him. He might even study all of them in great detail and still be unable to choose one. So the question is: what is this guy supposed to do? What should draw him towards Christianity in particular?



But to trust him, our hypothetical non-believer must believe in him in the first place, which is the very problem he's having. How can you trust a guy whose very existence you doubt? Any such "trust" wouldn't be genuine trust anyway. And, going back to the paragraph above, how should he know to trust him as opposed to some other god?

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Well, first, I would ask: have you examined the Gospels and their historical evidence? One thing that I have pointed out numerous times on this board is that, since the Christian faith is centered around the death and resurrection of Christ, then one would have to start there. Examine whether the texts are reliable, and ask whether the men who wrote them can be trusted. If the evidence in question points to this event being real, then that should be a good start.

But if you do not wish to examine the history, or simply intend to dismiss what they claim, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

There is one distinguishing point between Christianity and other world religions, and that is this: Jesus Christ claimed to be the Lord Incarnate, and by his life and work, demonstrated that he was. No other major world religious leader that I'm aware of ever made the kinds of claims that Jesus made. If one were to ask Mohammed, "Are you Allah?", would firmly deny it. If you ask Buddha, "Are you Brahman Incarnate?", he might laugh and say that you have not yet reached Enlightenment. So while we may have distinct histories of these particular men, none of them made the kinds of claims that Jesus made, nor did they accomplish the kinds of things that he did.

But of course, I realize that detractors have offered numerous explanations as to why these accounts are not to be trusted, yet I have found very few plausible explanations that cover all the key questions involved. "Jesus' death was not real." He was stabbed in the heart with a spear after enduring 6 hours of painful torture and asphyxiation. "Jesus' body was stolen." By whom? And why did the women and the apostles see him? "They lied." Really? And why were they willing to embark on a mission to change the world based on a lie? And why were they willing to suffer and die themselves, unless they believed that what they were doing was for the sake of truth? "Altruism?" But it wouldn't have made sense unless they believed what they were saying themselves. "Fraud?" What did they have to gain, besides rejection, imprisonment, torture, and in some cases, death? "The writings were made hundreds of years later." Then why are there numerous manuscripts from just a few decades later, and enough available copies to point to a much earlier date? "The writings were edited for political reasons." That's kind of hard to pull off, considering that available manuscripts are scattered all over the ancient world, from Rome to Asia, and there's enough of them consistent enough to establish a highly reliable text. "The Bible describes miracles: that automatically makes it unreliable." Only if you begin with the assumption that God does not exist or that he is unable to do miracles. Dismissing evidence just because you do not like the direction it leads is not a valid approach.

But, as I said before, not even us Christians have all of our questions answered. In the end, every one of us is challenged to trust. If we do not do so - even if we think that the reasons are not our fault - we still lose. I realize that this, in and of itself, isn't going to change you. It's just the way it is.

_________________

So? No matter how much justification he has for it, he still committed the act. Like Cobalt says, everyone has reasons for they're actions, but however much you justify it, the action is still the action.

So if someone breaks into your house, you're not going to use necessary force to make them leave?

I do not deny that the action is still the same action; I say only that, considering what was taking place, he had the right to do it. It was his Father's house, and these people were disrupting the worship with their trade.

Oh, and I don't remember the texts actually saying he inflicted any serious wounds on anyone, only that he chased them out with it.

OH! and actually, from the text, the whip wasn't even used against people. It was used to drive sheep and cattle. So we actually have no knowledge of him using the whip against human beings at all, or of afflicting any wounds of any sort on them.

_________________

The trouble I have with this is that even if not any one individual explanation makes more sense than taking the miracles and resurrection at face value, I still think the case is much stronger that it didn't happen than that it did.

I also have to quibble with this particular point:



Now, that is a valid point, but I don't think it's a complete refutation. All of these miracles are conveniently far in the past, where they are inaccessible to us. We have records of them, but I don't think they are hard proof... nothing is so convincing as witnessing a miracle before your eyes, but things that are unmistakably miracles never happen anymore. Was there some point that God said, "Hey, I'm not gonna do miracles anymore, so future generations will just have to take it for granted that this kinda stuff happens"? Yes, it's possible, but it's also too convenient.

BTW, speaking of resurrection, I hear that a chruch called Freedom Ministries in Mexico claims to have raised 400 people from the dead. Nobody believes those claims, of course (other than those who belong to the church in question, anyway), but I can imagine that 2000 years ago, a lot more might be made out of such a thing. There was a time that now-common magic tricks could only be witchcraft, miracles, or something similar. And back then, there weren't people like Houdini, James Randi, or Penn & Teller to prove that such tricks are fake. To some extent, people weren't even qualified back then to tell what is or isn't a miracle. Even having a large number of people witness and document it isn't enough to establish it as proof that it's true. It may be proof that something appeared to happen, but not that it did.

Now, the particular case of the resurrection of Christ might be difficult to pull off as a magic trick... I'm sure Jesus wouldn't have been able to get people like Pontius Pilate to cooperate in pulling a big joke on the people. But if people are more receptive to the idea that such things are possible, then they could still believe it happened even if it didn't. For all we know, another guy who looked and talked like Jesus could have come along and decided to play the part. He might look and sound a bit different, but when asked about it, he could say, "Hey, give me a break... I was dead, you know. You expect me to be exactly the same after an experience like that?" After a while, everybody takes it for granted that this new guy is Jesus and forget that they ever doubted it. Sure, that scenario might sound unlikely, but then, so is rising back from the dead, right? And that's still only one possible explanation.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

First, just because there are people who expose hoaxes today does not mean that they've adequately disproven what happened back then. But there are a few things to consider concerning your own theory:
1. What about the spear wound? A person most likely would not be up and walking around 48 hours after taking a spear to the heart. In fact, I would doubt they would survive without intense medical care.

2. The wounds inflicted on Jesus during the crucifixion were still visible. The disciples were permitted to see them, even to touch them, to see that they were real.

Again, I have to surmise that presuming that the resurrection is the least likely explanation, without some clue as to which would be a better one, is still not the best approach to understanding what happened. Again, it's a matter of God calling us to trust him, and having done something fairly significant to justify that trust. And yet, because there is supposedly some better explanation that awaits our discovery...

But because they are able to prove that there are hoaxes today does not in and of itself prove that all amazing claims of the miraculous are to be deemed false. Only that there are evil people who are willing to defraud people and take advantage of their faith. But again, examine the lives of the apostles themselves and ask yourself: are these the kind of men who would perpetrate such a fraud? And if so, for what motive?

_________________

Are you sure about that? I think I remember some sorcerers even being mentioned in the Bible.

_________________

There were sorcerer's mentioned, but he's not talking about people who engage in magic that way, but illusionists who expose magic tricks. Of course, I wouldn't doubt that the majority of those sorcerers probably were charlatans, but I think an illusion on the scale of bringing a dead man back to life might have been beyond their artistic skills. At least when you consider the wounds involved and such.

_________________

i didn't literally mean six impossible things, i just meant that Christianity is riddled with contradictions and paradoxes that you're just supposed to accept through "faith" even if they don't make any sense.

the damage is the idea that we need to be "saved" at all, as if we're just screwed if we don't believe in Jesus. which is nonsense. our sins will be punished, sure, but there's nothing that can prevent our good works from being rewarded as well, no matter what we believe in. the damage is that lots of people think Christianity is ridiculous; they reject this "Jesus or hell" stuff, and they think that that's all that religion is, and that drives them away from God. i see that as a major problem.

Didymus loves to make excuses and act as if he has the knowledge and the authority to interpret Judaism's scriptures better than its own sages, and refuses to see not only how condescending that is but how circular his reasoning is. that's basically the hallmark of Christianity and i see that as extremely harmful to people who are actually seeking meaning.

I'm not really sure if this talk of "damage" is really appropriate here. That's a rather inflammatory word. Although I do respect your opinion, we also need to ensure that debates won't get heated. I'm not really concerned about you and Didymus in particular getting in a heated debate, but something ugly could develop with other people involved, and in any case it may set a poor example. I understand that you just want to tell it the way you see it, but I don't think that has to involve pointing fingers at everyone and saying that they're causing problems. So let's be sure that we don't make it personal, all right?

(Didymus, I'll respond to your post in a bit. Don't let me forget.)

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Cobalt:

You have objections to the Christian faith, and I answer those objections. You claim that being an Orthodox Jew gives you authority to dictate truth to me, whereas I believe that Christ's death and resurrection gives him authority to contradict you. As St. Peter says, "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—", and "This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses," and "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:22, 32, 36).

_________________

That's true, but not everything is a hard matter of "true" or "false", especially when dealing with issues like this. My issue is not that the resurrection of Christ has been disproven, which it hasn't, but that it hasn't been proven... at least, not to my satisfaction. Exposing today's hoaxes may not prove anything about the past, but it can still cast doubt on it.

Suppose for purposes of example that it used to be imagined that the aurora borealis was one of God's miracles: it was something he'd do now and then just for fun (or for whatever purpose). Then one day we get fancy technology and when it happens again, we prove that it's caused by natural processes and would happen without the intervention of a divine being. Does that prove that all the previous times were also really natural processes, and not the work of God? No. But would it be very reasonable to strongly suspect so? Of course. It's not necessary to prove that something is false to make the claim that it is true questionable.

To give a more direct refutation, I would have to read the documents in question. And I would do that, but that's really a lot of work, considering that we already know what sort of conclusion I'm going to draw. Once people make up their minds about something, they tend to rationalize it any way they can, no matter how the evidence changes, and I'm not immune to it. Not even my awareness of this fact can make me immune to it. The only way to be immune to it is forget what I already believe and re-analyze the situation objectively, which I can't do.

Nevertheless, I might take up the challenge of reading them sometime and seeing what I can make of it. Not right now, though...



For one thing, it would be possible that the apostles were deceived as well...

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

and i'll counter with Deuteronomy 13 1-4: "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him."

doing miracles, even coming back from the dead (if that happened, which i don't believe that did) doesn't prove anything. he can come back from the dead as many times as he wants, he can turn dogs into cats or stop global warming for all i care, but when he starts talking about how the Torah commandments no longer apply and you have to worship some human as God or else burn in hell forever, he's lost me. the Torah says that God is not a man, then 1300 years later Jesus comes along and says that God is a man, you know, i'm inclined to believe the Torah.

I seem to remember Jesus saying he came not to do away with the Law, but to fulfill it. So if you're claiming that Jesus is commanding people to disobey the Torah, then you are mistaken.


God, in his essence, is not a man. Yet I fail to see how that comes around to meaning that he cannot take human form if he so desires. He has, in fact, several times in the Torah taken human form to walk among men. When the Torah says that God is not a man, it is not declaring that he could not take human form, but that he is not bound by the limitations, sin, or weaknesses of mortal men, not that he could not ever become incarnate and walk among us as one of us. And certainly, Christ himself was not bound by limitations, sins, or weaknesses.

_________________

Well sure, but I'm sure Kef doesn't believe those guys were real, in which case they'd have to be illusionists. I dunno if it really even matters if they were real or not, but either way, they couldn't figure out Jesus' miracles.

_________________

everyone always uses this excuse and never realizes, apparently, that it's completely meaningless. what does it mean to "fulfill" the law? the law is eternal. fulfilling it means obeying it. that doesn't mean that once you've fulfilled the law, it's no longer in effect and you never have to do it again. that's ridiculous.




He absolutely did NOT "take human form" in the Torah. He sent man-formed angels several times to speak in His name, but the idea that He could choose to become a person is so incomprehensibly blasphemous that it's laughable. it's such a completely pagan concept.

What about when he walked with Adam in the cool of the evening? Would he not have taken some corporeal form in order to do so, or would he have merely been in some sort of spirit form?

What about when he spoke to Abraham? While it certainly seems to have been an angel (one of three) who came to him, Abraham did address the angel as Lord.

And what of his battle with Jacob? Was not that angel addressed as God once the battle was over?

And what of Daniel 7, in which the "one like the Son of Man," who comes on the clouds of heaven, and is given power, authority, and dominion over the whole earth?

You continue to deny that the Lord CANNOT and DID NOT take human form, but I do not concur. I feel that this prohibition that you place upon God is essentially your own misunderstanding of what he was communicating when he said that, which, if you go back and study those passages in question, are essentially his way of saying, "I am not limited as you are, and I am not sinful as you are." You're jumping from there to, "I will never take human form to walk among my people," and I think that's just ridiculous.

And Jesus fulfilled it by obeying it himself. In those places where you deem he broke it (according to your understanding of the Tanak, which I surmise is more informed by your own religious presuppositions than what is actually stated in the Tanak), I have already shown where it was not a violation of the Law.

Oh, I have no doubt that Jesus had little concern for the traditions of the elders and various regulations that men constructed in addition to God's Law, and certainly by Pharisaic standards, he was never a good Jew. But by the standards of the Tanak itself, he was. And to the best of my knowledge, he never commanded any Jew to violate the Tanak, but in fact condemned people of his day who substituted their own traditions for God's Law. And what's more, through his own life and the message of his apostles, commended certain aspects of that Law to the Gentiles, namely this: "Love the Lord you God."

But what exactly did Jesus mean by fulfilling the Law? It meant that, when all was said and done, that he himself was the be the supreme sacrifice that would atone for the sins of men, that would free them from the curse of the Law, which was death. That he, by his own suffering and death, would free men from death and hell.

---------------------------------------------
Kef:

You raise some interesting points there. I will grant this: perhaps it can never be proven with absolute certainty. But then again, ask yourself this: exactly what would it take to demonstrate that certainty? And, while we're at it, how many other aspects of life actually do demonstrate that level of certainty that you're looking for? Think about it: if you're buying a car, what assurances do you have that it will work reliably? Granted, you have the manufacturer's guarantee. You also have various publications and such that might indicate whether that particular vehicle is reliable. You might even be able to get in and take a test drive. But you never know until you've actually had it some time and can start to see whether it is reliable before you can know for certainty that you got your money's worth. For all you know, there could be a defect or flaw that could cause it to break within a year, or something about that one particular vehicle that could cause problems later on.

And what about marriage? It might be someone you've known for years and feel you can reasonably trust. But how can you know for certain that the person you marry is reliable? You can have some level of trust based on the relationship prior to that, but still, that is not certainty.

My point is this: there is very little in life that's going to give you the level of certainty that you're expecting here. In the end, you can only examine the evidence and make some conclusion based on that. In my life, I have come to conclude that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, and there have been many aspects of my life that have verified that faith for me. Have there been times of doubt and struggle? Yes. My whole last year of seminary, for example. Or the last half of last year. But what I have discovered is that it is in those dark times, those times I least feel God's presence, that he calls me to trust him even more. But when he's brought me out of them, I look back and realize that it was only with his help that I could have made it.

But as for the apostles being deceived: highly unlikely. Remember, they had seen him beaten, tortured, crucified, and stabbed. On Easter morning, they were invited to examine his wounds. If it had been a fake Jesus, the wounds would have been obviously fake. Not only that, but who would he get to help him pull it off? The disciples were his closest friends. No, it would seem to me from the wounds inflicted, as well as the apostles' examination of those wounds after the resurrection, would make that extremely unlikely. In fact, it would be more probable that they themselves were the deceivers, and I've already given my reasons for believing that not to be the case.

_________________

You question God's omnipotence? Really? You're declaring He cannot do something?

_________________

Cobalt has a strict Old Testament view of God. He views God taking human form for the sake of our salvation(Jesus) as blasphemous.

_________________

I don't have too much knowledfge on the subject, so chances are the following will be quickly discredited, but I've had this idea for a long time so i thought I might as well post it



But what if the disciples were in on it? Around the time Jesus was alive, religion was dying in places like Rome and it's surrounding area - the poet Lucretius, for example, had written "De Rareum Natura" (On the Nature Of Things), intended to dismiss religion as superstition and explain how humankind lives without any God. Perhaps the disciples felt that, without religion, people would have nor morals, creating chaos. In an attempt to stop this from happening, they staged Jesus's resurection to renew religion.

Like I said, I'm going out on a limb here, and there's probably a lot of evidence going against that theory, but I'm curious as to what others say.

I've questioned omnipotence myself, especially in regards to the Christian definition of God. Didymus has already expressed his disagreement with this take, but as I was taught that God was supposed to be so benevolent that he was physically incapable of directly performing acts of evil, that would make him not omnipotent.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I believe God being unwilling to do something to be much different from Him being unable to do something.

_________________

The question of limits of God's omnipotence:

My thought is that his omnipotence is essentially his power to accomplish anything he desires within his creation. After all, if he is truly Creator of all things, then it would stand to reason that God can shape/move/manipulate/change anything within that created order in order to accomplish pretty much whatever he desires. This would include such things as healing the blind, causing barren wombs to conceive, and even raising the dead.

However, if we are discussing something that by its very nature is contrary to simple rules of logic - for example, creating a rock so big he can't move it (i.e., create something that exists beyond the boundaries of omnipotence), or simultaneously exist and not exist, or make a circumference of a circle equal something other than pi times its radius. As to that, it is not that God's power is limited, but that the thing in question is complete nonsense. As Lewis put it, putting "God can" in front of nonsense does not make it any less nonsense.

In this case, it is not so much that God cannot force someone to do what he intends, but rather that, in his patience, he does not do so.

_________________

the Presence of God was with them in the garden, but absolutely not in any physical sense. have you heard of "metaphors"? the Bible is full of them.



"Lord" is a generic term of respect



no, it wasn't.



that's probably the messiah. not God. God is referred to as "The One of Ancient Days" in this context and He's clearly distinct from the "one like a son of man." Son of Man is just a person, it poetically refers to normal humans.



what's ridiculous and pagan is the idea that the Infinite Being could also be a person. it's logically impossible! God is utterly beyond the physical and spiritual worlds. it's nonsensical to say that God can be a person. God is God! i can't believe i even have to make this point.



you gave me nothing but excuses based on the presupposition that Jesus was God and therefore was free to do whatever he wanted to do, which is completely circular.



the Tanakh explicitly states that God is leaving the law in the hands of the Judges and the Rabbis to interpret and apply as they see fit. if Jesus had little regard for the traditions of the elders, then he was disobeying God's own law to respect those judgments and traditions.



do you honestly not see how this makes no sense? i don't understand what you think the Law is. it's not a punishment for sin, it's simply the best way to live, the way to come closest to God while taking care of oneself and others. the Law is the path to holiness itself! the fact that you (and Christianity) sees it as a burden says a lot more about you (and about Christianity's pagan influence) than it does about the Law.