Jesus was a Hindu Monk and Survived the Cross
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Nope I dont believe in an afterlife whether its the christian afterlife, muslim afterlife or reincarnation or hindu afterlife.
:) Simply because
1. No one has been there
2. No one has seen these places physically
3. No one knows where these places are
It's like saying there's this magical rainbow land beyond our universe, but if there's no evidence, why should you believe me?
Tcmc,
Your reasons for rejecting belief in the afterlife are fallacious and they are commit the fallacy of begging the question.
1. Is it because no one has been there, therefore there is no afterlife, or because there is no afterlife thus no one has been there? Which is which? And how do you know no one has been there? Because there is no afterlife. How you know there is no afterlife? Because no one has been there. If you cannot see the circularity of your argument then you really need to take a logic 101 course. Need me to teach you?
2. Why do you assume that the afterlife is a physical place? Who told you that the afterlife is a physical place? This also exposes the naturalism that you cling to. Always looking for things that can be available to the five senses. Yet in your daily life you are happy to know that many things are real and true despite not being susceptible to empirical testing. The laws of logic is one good example.
3. How you know that no one knows? You could just as well be projecting your own ignorance here. Have you known everyone who has ever lived on the planet? Then how you conclude that no one knows? What if someone does claim to know? You will then ask for proofs that commit the same question begging fallacies as 1 or 2 above.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Your reasons for rejecting belief in the afterlife are fallacious and they are commit the fallacy of begging the question.
1. Is it because no one has been there, therefore there is no afterlife, or because there is no afterlife thus no one has been there? Which is which? And how do you know no one has been there? Because there is no afterlife. How you know there is no afterlife? Because no one has been there. If you cannot see the circularity of your argument then you really need to take a logic 101 course. Need me to teach you?
2. Why do you assume that the afterlife is a physical place? Who told you that the afterlife is a physical place? This also exposes the naturalism that you cling to. Always looking for things that can be available to the five senses. Yet in your daily life you are happy to know that many things are real and true despite not being susceptible to empirical testing. The laws of logic is one good example.
3. How you know that no one knows? You could just as well be projecting your own ignorance here. Have you known everyone who has ever lived on the planet? Then how you conclude that no one knows? What if someone does claim to know? You will then ask for proofs that commit the same question begging fallacies as 1 or 2 above.
BIC
BASICALLY you are saying
a) If no one has been there, it doesnt mean it's not real
b) If it isn't physical, it doesn't mean it's not real.
So going by this, many places are possible. From hobbit land in LOTR, to heavens and hells in other religions to the the magical rainbow place beyond our universe.
Right?
If you go by such a logic, then why aren't you considering the possibilities of these places? Well, no one has been there, no one has seen them but doesnt mean all these places are fake!
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
1. You agreed it can be interpeted in many ways easily, whether callously or not. Is it because the bible is too generic? Or is it because on one chapter it says salvation is by grace and in another chapter it says baptism is needed for salvation?
2. Why you always talk until so serious? "Throw the whole christianity is disarray"?? No. I am just confused regarding christians interpeting the verses differently, even in the core essentials of the faith.
a) Like even in issues of whether jesus was god and nature of heaven and hell, there are differences. SOme christians tell me that heaven and hell are not literal places and I do not have to worry while some christians tell me they are literal places.
b) Some christians tell me there will be a2ND CHANCE when I die where jesus will preach the gospel in hades again but soem christians tell me there is no 2nd chance.
So who should I believe? I also want to "be safe and saved"
Tcmc,
1. There are many reasons why people can have different interpretations of the Bible. It is reductionistic to ascribe it to one reason, generic. I have also given you another reason, people (like you lah) are just being shoddy and callous in handling the Word of God. Also, everyone has their own cultural and social background that we often import into the text, and this can affect how the Bible is to be read. A good example is the belief in evolution. If one believes that science determines truth, then one will take evolution as true and force it onto the Bible, or else force the Bible to fit the evolutionary view and come up with what Dawkins called "barking mad" theistic evolution. BTW, nowhere does the Bible says that baptism is needed for salvation. But the Bible clearly says that salvation is by grace so that no one can boast of works. You need to let the clear words of Scripture take precedence. A good interpretation will be able to account for other APPARENTLY conflicting verses. But such explanations cannot be ad hoc or arbitrary.
2. Dude, you are confused? Who are you kidding? Is your personal confusion a reason for rejecting the faith? No, you seem not to be confused at all that Christianity must be rejected. Stop giving the impression that you are a helpless victim of confusion. Many times we are confused because we lack the necessary knowledge. But you take the lack of knowledge as your certainty and confidence to reject the faith.
3. You truly confused about Jesus, heaven and hell meh? Doesn't look like it to me at all. Jesus Himself claimed to be God, and never denied the worship due to God alone. Even when Thomas called "My God and my Lord" Jesus did not correct him. All indicators clearly point to Jesus' deity. And Jesus spoke about heaven and hell a lot. He spoke of hell as a place of torment. You think this torment is fictional and not real? If so, what's so scary about a nonliteral hell? And even if you want to be allegorical about it, you will then have to come to terms with an allegorical hell that is literally tormenting. I would say a real hell is consistent with real torment.
4. You are so easily confused and swayed by what others are telling you because you NEVER had a proper foundation to begin with. You cannot even make a stand and study the Bible diligently, or reason properly. Hebrews said that it is appointed for man to die ONCE and face judgement. Ask yourself then where is the place for a second chance? Did Jesus ever hint of a second chance in any of the Gospels? Hebrews also say "Today is the day of salvation", saying that we ought to make a choice for God today while we still have today. It does not say, "no worry, you can still make a choice after you are dead."
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
1. There are many reasons why people can have different interpretations of the Bible. It is reductionistic to ascribe it to one reason, generic. I have also given you another reason, people (like you lah) are just being shoddy and callous in handling the Word of God. Also, everyone has their own cultural and social background that we often import into the text, and this can affect how the Bible is to be read. A good example is the belief in evolution. If one believes that science determines truth, then one will take evolution as true and force it onto the Bible, or else force the Bible to fit the evolutionary view and come up with what Dawkins called "barking mad" theistic evolution. BTW, nowhere does the Bible says that baptism is needed for salvation. But the Bible clearly says that salvation is by grace so that no one can boast of works. You need to let the clear words of Scripture take precedence. A good interpretation will be able to account for other APPARENTLY conflicting verses. But such explanations cannot be ad hoc or arbitrary.
2. Dude, you are confused? Who are you kidding? Is your personal confusion a reason for rejecting the faith? No, you seem not to be confused at all that Christianity must be rejected. Stop giving the impression that you are a helpless victim of confusion. Many times we are confused because we lack the necessary knowledge. But you take the lack of knowledge as your certainty and confidence to reject the faith.
3. You truly confused about Jesus, heaven and hell meh? Doesn't look like it to me at all. Jesus Himself claimed to be God, and never denied the worship due to God alone. Even when Thomas called "My God and my Lord" Jesus did not correct him. All indicators clearly point to Jesus' deity. And Jesus spoke about heaven and hell a lot. He spoke of hell as a place of torment. You think this torment is fictional and not real? If so, what's so scary about a nonliteral hell? And even if you want to be allegorical about it, you will then have to come to terms with an allegorical hell that is literally tormenting. I would say a real hell is consistent with real torment.
4. You are so easily confused and swayed by what others are telling you because you NEVER had a proper foundation to begin with. You cannot even make a stand and study the Bible diligently, or reason properly. Hebrews said that it is appointed for man to die ONCE and face judgement. Ask yourself then where is the place for a second chance? Did Jesus ever hint of a second chance in any of the Gospels? Hebrews also say "Today is the day of salvation", saying that we ought to make a choice for God today while we still have today. It does not say, "no worry, you can still make a choice after you are dead."
1. I am not reductionist what. I know there are a few reasons. No, I really understand what you are saying about social and cultural background. Like christians in catholic churches worship in a different way compared to protestant christians like you etc. But the goal is the same, I understand.
But my question is - All christians supposedly hear the voice of God. And God apparently tells them whether E.g tongues is biblical/unbiblical. So one camp says "GOd tells me" and the other camp also says "God tells me". Yes it could probably be cultural differences or different understanding. But the problem comes when boths sides say "God tells me". If both claim "God tells me", then one has to be wrong because apparently, God cannot contradict himself.So how do you tell who is wrong and who is right when BOTH camps quote verses? This is what I am trying to ask you all the time. I know your answer will be "by the spirit". But both camps also do go by "the spirit". So how?
2. Lets skip this question of whether jesus is god or not because you seem not to understand that non-trinitarian christians also can quote verses in the bible to justify non-trinitarian beliefs, just like you can.
3. About salvation,
1 Peter 3:18-19 read as follows:
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;"
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound.� (Isaiah 61:1)
So for christians who told me that jesus will go to "prison" to preach to the spirits to give the dead a second chance, they quote the above verses.
So yes you believe there's no second chance after we die by quoting verses, these christians also tell me that there's a second chance.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
BASICALLY you are saying
a) If no one has been there, it doesnt mean it's not real
b) If it isn't physical, it doesn't mean it's not real.
So going by this, many places are possible. From hobbit land in LOTR, to heavens and hells in other religions to the the magical rainbow place beyond our universe.
Right?
If you go by such a logic, then why aren't you considering the possibilities of these places? Well, no one has been there, no one has seen them but doesnt mean all these places are fake!
Tcmc,
Your reasoning is absurd. Perhaps you are ignorant, but it is easy to verify that LOTR is a work of fiction simply because that's what the author himself said. Same with Narnia.
And yes, I am basically saying that just because empirical proofs are not there, it doesn't mean you conclude that the said thing in question does not exist. Neither am I saying that it exists. We have to consider the rationale for the belief that it exists or it does not exists. For you, you simply take the option that what cannot be empiricallly proven must be rejected. But empiricism itself is self-refuting. Do you have empirical proof that empiricism is the truth?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Your reasoning is absurd.
hahahahahaha
More like you
-
BIC there are 2 posts you didnt respond to here.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC there are 2 posts you didnt respond to here.
he accuses you of skirting the issue. same for him
even if he did reply, you think a 3 year old kid will believe what he said? is he taking a mickey out of us from his replies
-
Maybe it has to do with collective consciousness....I think all major religions works becos of people believing and praying together....perhaps thru collective consciousness, miracles happen ? Anybody wanna verify this ? If we pray for the same thing, it'll come true....Hmmmm....
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
he accuses you of skirting the issue. same for him
even if he did reply, you think a 3 year old kid will believe what he said? is he taking a mickey out of us from his replies
I am not even skirting his questions because I find absolutely no point in discussing about adam and eve with him when he insists they are real without evidence.
If he tells me he believes in them by faith, then I am ok withthat... but now he's pushing them as historical figures.....
It's like me pushing nezha and zhong kui to be historical figures.
There are christians who also dont believe adam and eve were literal people what.. so i dont know whats wrong with BIC.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
I am not even skirting his questions because I find absolutely no point in discussing about adam and eve with him when he insists they are real without evidence.
If he tells me he believes in them by faith, then I am ok withthat... but now he's pushing them as historical figures.....
It's like me pushing nezha and zhong kui to be historical figures.
There are christians who also dont believe adam and eve were literal people what.. so i dont know whats wrong with BIC.
ya sun wu kong is as real as god, same goes with adam and eve, dun u reckoned
, just like superman is with DC comics and movies -
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
ya sun wu kong is as real as god, same goes with adam and eve, dun u reckoned
,
just like superman is with DC comics and movies It's called faith for a reason.
And BIC is relying on faith to believe that adam and eve are historical figures.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
It's called faith for a reason.
And BIC is relying on faith to believe that adam and eve are historical figures.
unless they are concurred by historian?
oh wait, did you say they exists in the bible? eh bible no need proof one, I see
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Your reasoning is absurd. Perhaps you are ignorant, but it is easy to verify that LOTR is a work of fiction simply because that's what the author himself said. Same with Narnia.
And yes, I am basically saying that just because empirical proofs are not there, it doesn't mean you conclude that the said thing in question does not exist. Neither am I saying that it exists. We have to consider the rationale for the belief that it exists or it does not exists. For you, you simply take the option that what cannot be empiricallly proven must be rejected. But empiricism itself is self-refuting. Do you have empirical proof that empiricism is the truth?
But then how about the other heavens and hells in other religions? Going by your logic, they COULD BE real too? Its a possibility right?
How about the magical rainbow land ?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Maybe it has to do with collective consciousness....I think all major religions works becos of people believing and praying together....perhaps thru collective consciousness, miracles happen ? Anybody wanna verify this ? If we pray for the same thing, it'll come true....Hmmmm....
Anybody wanna verify this ?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
It's called faith for a reason.
And BIC is relying on faith to believe that adam and eve are historical figures.
Not anymore than you are relying on faith that your ancestor was an ape.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Not anymore than you are relying on faith that your ancestor was an ape.
Lol. Tell that to the researchers, archaeologists and scientists, that evolution is based on zero evidence but faith.
Also please do not ever write about evolution in all ur future test/exams. Instead, write that humans popped out from magic dust and then adam and eve were the first two real people.
Then again, you will never write your true beliefs in exams, which I find it strange and ironic. Nvm about that. Lol.
-
Hi BIC,
Please respond to below.
1. I am not reductionist what. I know there are a few reasons. No, I really understand what you are saying about social and cultural background. Like christians in catholic churches worship in a different way compared to protestant christians like you etc. But the goal is the same, I understand.
But my question is - All christians supposedly hear the voice of God. And God apparently tells them whether E.g tongues is biblical/unbiblical. So one camp says "GOd tells me" and the other camp also says "God tells me". Yes it could probably be cultural differences or different understanding. But the problem comes when boths sides say "God tells me". If both claim "God tells me", then one has to be wrong because apparently, God cannot contradict himself.So how do you tell who is wrong and who is right when BOTH camps quote verses? This is what I am trying to ask you all the time. I know your answer will be "by the spirit". But both camps also do go by "the spirit". So how?
2. Lets skip this question of whether jesus is god or not because you seem not to understand that non-trinitarian christians also can quote verses in the bible to justify non-trinitarian beliefs, just like you can.
3. About salvation,
1 Peter 3:18-19 read as follows:
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;"
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound.� (Isaiah 61:1)
So for christians who told me that jesus will go to "prison" to preach to the spirits to give the dead a second chance, they quote the above verses.
So yes you believe there's no second chance after we die by quoting verses, these christians also tell me that there's a second chance.
-
Also BIC, respond to this, thanks. Need your opinion.
nd how do you explain these verses, some commanded by Jesus Himself :( ?
Mark 16:15-16 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Acts 2:37-8 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Gal. 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Thats my question lor.
How come some christians quote some verses to me to say baptism is not necessary for salvation, then some christians quote me other verses to say its necessary?
I am confused. Thats all.
Please enlighten me, BIC.
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Maybe it has to do with collective consciousness....I think all major religions works becos of people believing and praying together....perhaps thru collective consciousness, miracles happen ? Anybody wanna verify this ? If we pray for the same thing, it'll come true....Hmmmm....
Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html -
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.htmlActually when I was a christian , I prayed a lot. And now i look back, out of 100 times I pray, only mayb 2 or 5 times get "answered".
But as a christian then, I would tend to focus on the 2% or 5% more than the 95%.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.htmlInteresting. But what was not mentioned was, prayers to who? Who did they interview? What's the mix of religion included in the research? And why insist that prayers include the phrase, "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications"? Why do these researchers ASSUME that prayers are like rubbing a genie bottle that will always get you what you want?
Furthermore, it is mentioned that "Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not." Is it not possible that those who were prayed for and lived, would have died had no prayers been made at all? Did the researchers consider this possibility?
But let's not go further than what is warranted. This study is hardly conclusive as already admitted by the article. It is only SUGGESTIVE. No need to press panic button.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Actually when I was a christian , I prayed a lot. And now i look back, out of 100 times I pray, only mayb 2 or 5 times get "answered".
But as a christian then, I would tend to focus on the 2% or 5% more than the 95%.
That depends much on what you prayed for, isn't it? Didn't you know that God always answer prayers, just that the answers can be yes, no or wait? A "no" answer is still an answer, no? Yes?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
That depends much on what you prayed for, isn't it? Didn't you know that God always answer prayers, just that the answers can be yes, no or wait? A "no" answer is still an answer, no? Yes?
We are talking about how "effective" prayer is. Fact is only 2-5% of prayers get answered.
Also I read an article about how praying for a dying person adds more anxiety because that person knows he's in "deep shit" already.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
We are talking about how "effective" prayer is. Fact is only 2-5% of prayers get answered.
Also I read an article about how praying for a dying person adds more anxiety because that person knows he's in "deep shit" already.
Are we talking about christian prayers? Or does the study includes prayers from other religions ?