Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a matter of interpretation. I've heard some say that when Jesus said to spread the Gospel, he was only addressing those he was speaking to, not to every Christian yet to be born.
Mensa, in order for the Christian faith to grow it would have been incumbent on all Christians to spread the gospel. Therefore Jesus' words would have to have applied to every Christian alive in any time for the theory that the gospel be spread to the entire world and then shall come the end. The apostles alone weren't capable of doing that.
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14
But what's getting lost here is WHY--what reason did the churchmen have for putting the words into Jesus' mouth:
"And these signswill accompany those who believe: they will pick up snakeswith their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all"
This is an extremely important point: notice the power to handle deadly snakes without being bitten and drinking deadly poison without being harmed was NOT extended to the apostles--it was extended to all who believe in Jesus as the savior son of God. You believe in Jesus, BAM! You're automatically protected from poisonous snakes and deadly poison and by extension all manner of harm.
Now mensa, you and I and phet and mordant and other atheists know that's a load of bull, but that's not my question. My question is:
Why on earth would clever churchmen put into Jesus' mouth a promise that the churchmen knew full well that belief in Jesus could NOT accomplish such miraculous feats?
No Christians thus far as been willing to touch this question with a 10-foot pole. Why?
Why I care is not the issue nor is it any of your business. Let's say for the sake of discussion that despite being an atheist I want to see the gospel spread to the entire world, and I'm angry at the Christian god for not helping out. There's your "Why?"
So the question was "Why do you think God refuses to help Christian missionaries win a big pot of money so they can spread the gospel of his son, Jesus?" Care to venture a guess? If you have no idea, just say so. Nobody will think the worst of you. Most readers already know why God doesn't help out the missionaries.
Context is important because if you're not inquiring in good faith there's no point in a discussion. Why is it any of your business why the faithful have faith? Do you want to understand or mock?
The OP can continue these rants but there is no reason to ever reply and address his posts.
Believing is all that is necessary for religions to flourish and spread.
Proof is only needed or demanded by non-believers. And believers don't need non-believers.
No, you need some evidence. Every believers I know will cite evidence or argument. Belief is rational when there is strong evidence. A lot of time and effort has been made by very smart people to make the evidence look strong on a surface level. Every time you drill down though, you come up with flimsy evidence. Friends of mine who are believers either refuse to really explore or explore enough to read the plausible explanations. The last type have had some kind of experience that makes them believe if the face of so much evidence to the contrary. They won't hear or rational explanations. They admit the evidence is shoddy, but they argue feelings over facts.
You ARE aware that many Christians believe gambling is a sin...right?
Sorry my response to your other post is taking so long. My laptop bit the dust, so Im using my phone to post.
Many but not all, Mink. And lots and lots of Christians believe the end justifies the means. Would a buck spent on a lottery ticket be justified if by winning it could leads tens of thousands to Jesus?
No, you need some evidence. Every believers I know will cite evidence or argument. Belief is rational when there is strong evidence. A lot of time and effort has been made by very smart people to make the evidence look strong on a surface level. Every time you drill down though, you come up with flimsy evidence. Friends of mine who are believers either refuse to really explore or explore enough to read the plausible explanations. The last type have had some kind of experience that makes them believe if the face of so much evidence to the contrary. They won't hear or rational explanations. They admit the evidence is shoddy, but they argue feelings over facts.
This is a smart post. Traveler brings out my most salient concerns about Christianity: the evidence for believing in Jesus is shoddy to non-existent. The main reason Christians believe in Jesus has nothing to do with evidence--they don't care about evidence. They were gorged with Jesus from the cradle forward. A life without Jesus in their lives is unthinkable; it's anathema to their consciousness.
The fact that two individuals can hear the exact same evidence that the gospels Jesus was an invention of the Church and one can go away completely unaffected by what they hear and will continue believing in Jesus no matter what, while the other will have their world rocked back to the day they were born and will drop Jesus like a hot potato speaks volumes to the fact that believing in Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with God or Jesus or the scriptures. It has everything to do with our personalities--how some of us have personalities that allow us to be fooled into buying the Golden Gate bridge for a million bucks on just a cheaply-printed fake deed while more rational people can see through the ruse a mile away. Guess which one would believe in Jesus and which one would know Jesus is as phony as a 3-dollar bill.
Point of fact. Christianity is the largest religion in the world at 2.382 billion adherents. Second is Islam at 1.907. Third is Secular/Nonreligous/Agnostic/Atheist at 1.193. Fourth is Hinduism at 1.161.
I'd say that alone refutes your assertion of irrefutable proof.
Miss Hepburn, do you think that guy was the only one attached to his wealth? What about the other billion wealthy people who profess Jesus but are attached to their wealth?
What about them..and why would I care about them? I mean, why would I give 2 seconds of my thought time to them?
Context is important because if you're not inquiring in good faith there's no point in a discussion. Why is it any of your business why the faithful have faith? Do you want to understand or mock?
All this stuff is just evasion, Guy. Just answer the question please.
Why on earth would clever churchmen put into Jesus' mouth a promise that the churchmen knew full well that belief in Jesus could NOT accomplish such miraculous feats?
I get this all the time from Christians--lots of evasive hot air in an attempt to talk while being indignant without actually trying to answer the question put to them that they aren't capable of answering.
Will you please try to answer the question or are you going to continue with this evasive huffing and snorting, "How dare you ask such questions."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
