There is no proof that God exists

[Steve 2.0]

When we switch from discussing what we each personally believe over to trying to tell someone that their experiences are not valid, it seems like we're headed in the wrong direction. It seems pretty naive to suggest that you know more about his personal experience than he does, but what do I know?

Guilty as charged. I apologize to griz and to the board at large.

[B-Fly]

Good questions....

1. Well, basically, my wife was raised Methodist and I was Catholic....we felt we needed one church with similar beliefs. We have a Christian church very close and decided to go there. I wasn't rejecting anything per se. I just felt Christianity was a better path for our beliefs.

2. I believe God placed a person with knowledge in my path to help guide me or confirm my decision for life's struggles.

I still get confused by the suggestion that Methodism or other forms of Protestantism are "Christianity" but Catholicism is not, but I assume that's just semantic, no? Basically, you got married to someone from a different tradition and chose a nearby church that worked best for both of you and your family. That I definitely get. It's how my wife (who attended a Conservative synagogue growing up) and I (who attended a Reconstructionist synagogue growing up), ended up joining a Reform synagogue for our family and our kids' Hebrew School instruction.

I definitely get you on #2. My brain just has never really been wired to interpret such things as proof of G-d.

[Ken]

Guilty as charged. I apologize to griz and to the board at large.

This is the hot button topics forum, I don't think you owe the board an apology

[griswold]

I still get confused by the suggestion that Methodism or other forms of Protestantism are "Christianity" but Catholicism is not, but I assume that's just semantic, no? Basically, you got married to someone from a different tradition and chose a nearby church that worked best for both of you and your family. That I definitely get. It's how my wife (who attended a Conservative synagogue growing up) and I (who attended a Reconstructionist synagogue growing up), ended up joining a Reform synagogue for our family and our kids' Hebrew School instruction.

I definitely get you on #2. My brain just has never really been wired to interpret such things as proof of G-d.

Like I said, I didn't say that Catholicism isn't a form of Christianity.....I didn't reject it. I felt going to a non-denominational Christian church was a better path based on our two paths of Methodist and Catholic.

I truly believe there is coincidence of running into someone and sharing memories, etc.....but I also believe God has purposely put people in my path that we there to help me. Sometimes I listened and probably sometimes I didn't.

[griswold]

Guilty as charged. I apologize to griz and to the board at large.

LOL....no worries, buddy....

[Ken]

Like I said, I didn't say that Catholicism isn't a form of Christianity.....I didn't reject it. I felt going to a non-denominational Christian church was a better path based on our two paths of Methodist and Catholic.

I truly believe there is coincidence of running into someone and sharing memories, etc.....but I also believe God has purposely put people in my path that we there to help me. Sometimes I listened and probably sometimes I didn't.

My experience is similar on both points. My wife grew up Catholic and I came from a Baptist background and we found a good compromise. We were married in a non-denominational Christian Church (we tried the Catholic marriage route for her but ran into too many obstacles). And we are involved in a Methodist church now.

And I'm the same way with too many coincidences to be coincidental in countless of those type scenarios.

[DMT]

My wife and I had a traditional Indian ceremony but had our pictures taken in front of a Baha'i temple. We noticed someone following us and he ended up interviewing us for their newsletter.

http://bahai.uga.edu/2003/030600-1.html

Mr. Malfait was born in America, into a Christian family. Ms. Sinha was born in India, into a Hindu family.

"The Bahá'í religion is very accepting of other religions and accepting of diversity, which is important to us, since we're from different religions, and the Temple is symbolic of that," said Ms. Sinha. "So it means a lot to us."

[Sour Masher]

What do you think is promised by religion?

I obviously generally agree with your statement with the one exception.

That depends on the religion. In general, though, all religions promise order, understanding of place, meaning for why we are here and what we should be doing. I think that these functions can be good things for individuals and certainly groups, especially if we recognize that we are consciously submitting ourselves to an ideology, not because that is objective reality, the way the world is, but that we are consciously choosing the world we want to live in and how we want to live in it. That part of religion attracts me. The part that repels me is that most religions operate under the assumption that the narrative we are constructing for ourselves is the objective truth, that all people must live that way or face horrible consequences, in this life, and often beyond. Because of that, while religion brings people to together into a shared perception of reality, it also creates divisions and conflicts at a level few things are capable of. The stakes are so high--we are talking about the nature or truth and being and the fate of our immortal souls, in the context of many major religions. It all leads to the sort of promises that can never be fulfilled, but only corrupted. It leads to powerful people manipulating others. It leads to promises of salvation and curing disease that cannot be fulfilled by faith, for instance. It leads to people in religion desperate to hold onto power in a way that hurts followers. We see this happened again and again in all major religions. The Catholic churches abuse scandals are just the most obvious example of that at the moment.

Religion as a celebration of and examination of article of shared faith can be a good thing, if it is done in the spirit of learning how to live a better life. It is often a very bad thing when a faith is so grounded in the sacredness of its central texts, because they think they are the words of God, that they do not grow. It is a very bad thing when the focus moves from how to I become a better follower of this faith in a way that makes me a better person, to judgment and hate and conflict. So, basically, for me, to use Christianity as an example, it is a good thing when it leads to people using the tenants of their faith to be more like Mr. Rogers. It is a bad thing when they manipulate and defile the best parts of the faith, and embrace the worst parts, as those who follow prosperity gospel, like our fearless POTUS does.

[Gregg]

Care to share?

I thought about this quite a bit when I was driving.

I doubt I would attempt to share it in here. Mostly because I do not write as well as I speak. Plus it would be a long read and I am a bit lazy when it comes to that.

If I ever get the pleasure of meeting up with you again I would certainly not hesitate to share it with you if you were so inclined or interested.

I can tell you something that I find most excellent. I met you years ago with Gris had a great time. Now we are having a dialog, you ask me a tough question, I answer yes, you answer care to share. While I am thinking about sharing you continue to post. Part of my journey (in a good way) and part of the answer to your question involves the very Temple you mention in your post #142. Seeing that post and picture combined with your comment made me smile.

Beautiful place, beautiful couple.

[DMT]

I thought about this quite a bit when I was driving.

I doubt I would attempt to share it in here. Mostly because I do not write as well as I speak. Plus it would be a long read and I am a bit lazy when it comes to that.

If I ever get the pleasure of meeting up with you again I would certainly not hesitate to share it with you if you were so inclined or interested.

I can tell you something that I find most excellent. I met you years ago with Gris had a great time. Now we are having a dialog, you ask me a tough question, I answer yes, you answer care to share. While I am thinking about sharing you continue to post. Part of my journey (in a good way) and part of the answer to your question involves the very Temple you mention in your post #142. Seeing that post and picture combined with your comment made me smile.

Beautiful place, beautiful couple.

Thanks, and I hope to hear your story someday!

[Gregg]

"God" is just a leftover from when we didn't understand science. religion is the longest con job in the history of humanity, and basically exists as a tool of social control, primarily to keep women "in their place". I personally have less respect for anyone that believes in existence of any type of god past the age of 10, and find Christians, and specifically "prosperity gospel" christians to be the highest level of hypocrisy

proof noun
\ˈprüf \
Definition of proof (Entry 1 of 3)
1a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.

The Disciples followed Jesus for 3 years. They witnessed miracles and teachings. As a result of this they “believed” Jesus to be the Messiah. They found out that they were wrong.

They were not intending to be martyrs.
If they believed enough in the cause or their leader they would have been crucified with him. No this was not part of their plan. In fact they all fled when Jesus was arrested. They deserted Him. They were not going to die for their friend and Master, or the cause.

The crucifixion crushed their belief. Their leader was dead. He could not be what they believed him to be. The Savior. The Savior that was prophesized would not could not die.
There were no writings of Jesus’s sayings or eyewitness accounts to pass on. He had failed. There was only fear and disillusionment. So much fear that they fled and denied even knowing him. He was dead and all was lost.

When Jesus died there were NO Christians. No one believed him. There were no good thoughts or examples of how to live to pass on. There were no teachings to write down and pass on, no oral history.

Then something happened to change everything. They saw something that had a profound impact on all of them.

Here is a condensed version of what they preached in the days following the Crucifixion and Resurrection:

1) You killed Him!
2) God Raised Him
3) We’ve seen Him
4) Say you are sorry.

No Sermon on the mount, no feeding of 5,000, no cures for anyone. Just this message. None of the gospels were written for another 20-35 years.

They all of a sudden were not scared for their lives any longer and risked imprisonment, persecution and certain death for testifying about the risen Savior.

Eleven of the twelve apostles died a martyr’s death.

Andrew was crucified.
Bartholomew was crucified.
James, brother of Jesus was stoned.
James, son of Alphaeus was crucified.
James, son of Zebedee was killed by the sword.
John died naturally.
Matthew was crucified.
Peter was crucified upside down.
Philip was crucified.
Simon was crucified.
Thaddeus was killed by arrows.
Thomas died of a spear thrust.(this was Doubting Thomas who said I will not believe unless I put my hands in his wounds)

[Sour Masher]

Gregg, if you believe in Markan priority (Mark was written first), which most Christian scholars do, don't you think it interesting that in the original text, which ends at chapter 16, written 30-40 years after the death of Jesus, there was no mention at all of witnessing resurrection or the resurrected Jesus. There was only mention of an empty tomb (which was common at the time, given that most were not entombed and those who were often were pillaged by grave robbers), and a future promise of resurrection, and a call to spread the word. The resurrection story was not added until much later, and coincides with the shifting make up and message of the nascent Christian community, as it grew from a Jewish-based community content with spiritual rebirth to a Greco-Roman one rooted in myths of physical immortality. They needed a different focus and myth at that time to speak to that community, so they created one.

I spent a lot of time as an undergrad researching the historical Jesus. There are some really fascinating studies done of it, and I came away feeling confident there was such a man, and he obviously planted the seeds for one of the most profound religious movements the world has ever known.

There is also a lot of evidence that the scope of his story took a good while to grow to what it would become. The versions of what occurred, that eventually came to be written many, many years after the events themselves, read more logically as non--literal eschatological parables. And the reason why these needed to be told this way, to appeal to the the pagans who would be most drawn to an immortalized physical form, is really compelling when understood in the context of the development of the faith in its early stages.

[In the Corn]

Empirical, verifiable, replicable proof of God. I'll take my answer off the air.

I've been thinking about this need for Emperical, verifiable scientific, replicable proof of God.

While I'm leery of jumping into the fray on this, I just want to add: If God was replicable, God would be a pretty small God or not God at all, as God would share God status with whatever was replicated.

I think that's where the faith element come into this.

[Gregg]

Gregg, if you believe in Markan priority (Mark was written first), which most Christian scholars do, don't you think it interesting that in the original text, which ends at chapter 16, written 30-40 years after the death of Jesus, there was no mention at all of witnessing resurrection or the resurrected Jesus. There was only mention of an empty tomb (which was common at the time, given that most were not entombed and those who were often were pillaged by grave robbers), and a future promise of resurrection, and a call to spread the word. The resurrection story was not added until much later, and coincides with the shifting make up and message of the nascent Christian community, as it grew from a Jewish-based community content with spiritual rebirth to a Greco-Roman one rooted in myths of physical immortality. They needed a different focus and myth at that time to speak to that community, so they created one.

I spent a lot of time as an undergrad researching the historical Jesus. There are some really fascinating studies done of it, and I came away feeling confident there was such a man, and he obviously planted the seeds for one of the most profound religious movements the world has ever known.

There is also a lot of evidence that the scope of his story took a good while to grow to what it would become. The versions of what occurred, that eventually came to be written many, many years after the events themselves, read more logically as non--literal eschatological parables. And the reason why these needed to be told this way, to appeal to the the pagans who would be most drawn to an immortalized physical form, is really compelling when understood in the context of the development of the faith in its early stages.

Interesting, yes. We could have a lot of good discussion even argue on some of what you mention above. Like if the empty tomb was a set up, why would they use a woman to be the first witness. Why would they die for the lie of the empty tomb? Martyrs die for what they believe in not a lie they make up.

We know historically that Jesus was crucified. We know that his disciples fled (or they would have been arrested and killed with Jesus as well as they admitted it). We know most of them died a martyrs death after seeing something. According to them it was the risen Jesus.

We don't need Mark's writing to understand something happened that changed everything. Mark would not have been with the 12 when they witnessed the resurrected Jesus. He would have heard about it from Peter.

What evidence did you discover that would lead to your own belief in Jesus the man. He was a Rabbi, what do you think His motive and mission was?

[Sour Masher]

We don't need Mark's writing to understand something happened that changed everything. Mark would not have been with the 12 when they witnessed the resurrected Jesus. He would have heard about it from Peter.

What evidence did you discover that would lead to your own belief in Jesus the man. He was a Rabbi, what do you think His motive and mission was?

Why did Mark not include reports of seeing the resurrected Christ in his initial Gospel? It seems like a pretty important thing to exclude. It makes more sense that it was added, because it was needed to convert more folks to the faith from among those who already believed in the possibility of an immortal physical form,and expected it from their gods on earth stories.

As for why I believe there was a man behind the myth, there is substantial circumstantial evidence for his existence. As for what he was trying to do, I can only infer that from what others, long after his death, tell us was his message. He wanted reform. He wanted to change the world to fit a new way of living and worshipping. It is worth mentioning he was not alone in this goal, even during the time period in which he lived. His was an historical moment ripe for reformation, Mich like the Civil Rights era in the US in the 60s. Of course, no one is calling MLK Jr. The literal and only begotten son of the one true God.

As for why his message went viral when others did not, I think it is a combination of his talent and vision and message, and luck and circumstance. Some moments are just right for an extraordinary thought to spread. Some ideas really are viral. I should add, though, that I don't think all viral ideas are bad, and I'm not comparing the supernatural myths about Jesus to viruses to be offensive or dismissive of the extraordinary accomplishment in human history that is Christianity. But many such ideas take root based on distorted events far removed from reality, and they become absolute tenants of faith.

Here is a good read on how such a thing could happen from our recent history: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-cree...ve-ever-heard/

It takes awhile for the connection between that article and our conversation to become clear, but by the end, it does a good job of describing a phenomena very much akin to what I think happens with the supernatural tales in religions.