Atheist Mormon Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 When I saw Utah's wilderness first time 26 yrs old, I had little or no knowledge about stuff like Evolution, paleontology or geology. It didn't take me long to be convinced about the origins of the Earth or Humans; it was simply a matter of evidence, which was so abundant in Utah in the form of Rocks, Fossils and geologic strata upon strata laying everywhere. It would be so wonderful if Jesus left a signature like this Dinosaur did. My lifelong struggle with belief would non-existent. 1
JAHS Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 Religion is a matter of faith; not scientific evidence. If it was it would be a science and not a religion. You just have to choose to believe and go from there. It' a different kind of evidence you see as you enjoy the blessings one receives in your life by choosing to believe.
RevTestament Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than most other historical figures you probably believe in - like Buddha. Numerous NT writers wrote of Him. Josephus wrote of Him. The Roman historian, Tacitus wrote of Him. Do you really believe if there was a piece of parchment saying "I was here - Yeshua" that you would be more likely to believe? You don't believe because you don't want to believe, but only choose to believe the rest of history.
stemelbow Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 23 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: When I saw Utah's wilderness first time 26 yrs old, I had little or no knowledge about stuff like Evolution, paleontology or geology. It didn't take me long to be convinced about the origins of the Earth or Humans; it was simply a matter of evidence, which was so abundant in Utah in the form of Rocks, Fossils and geologic strata upon strata laying everywhere. It would be so wonderful if Jesus left a signature like this Dinosaur did. My lifelong struggle with belief would non-existent. Thanks for saying this. I can't help but get the feeling of solace, and peace as I travel through the wilderness. I'm from Utah and have spent countless hours traversing through the northern and southern areas of the state feeling enlivened at the notion of there being a God. Sure I hold that the traditional perspective of 6,000 year creation is myth....that the creation story as told in Genesis is largely based on Mesopotamian myth and thus is not and was never meant to be a literal telling of creation. I appreciate that the earth has been here for eons and shows the markings of such. Anyway, thanks. I appreciate the different perspectives, realizing how alike we get even when our conclusions vary. 2
stemelbow Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, JAHS said: Religion is a matter of faith; not scientific evidence. If it was it would be a science and not a religion. You just have to choose to believe and go from there. It' a different kind of evidence you see as you enjoy the blessings one receives in your life by choosing to believe. it feels an inherent part of me to believe. I don't feel like I have a choice. It is just part of me. I don't know how I would go about choosing not to believe in God. If ever I end up not believing in His existence I wonder if I'd see it as choice or just kind of my conclusion based on my experience and evaluation of things. It'd be annoying to have a believer tell me "all you have to do is choose to believe" I think, because if I try to imagine trying to make myself not believe, it doesn't work. 1
stemelbow Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, RevTestament said: There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than most other historical figures you probably believe in - like Buddha. Numerous NT writers wrote of Him. Josephus wrote of Him. The Roman historian, Tacitus wrote of Him. Do you really believe if there was a piece of parchment saying "I was here - Yeshua" that you would be more likely to believe? You don't believe because you don't want to believe, but only choose to believe the rest of history. concluding that there was a man named Jesus doesn't help an unbeliever believe in God, necessarily. 2
RevTestament Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 Here is the work of a doubting Thomas, Simon Greenleaf, who was an Evidence professor and became the President of Harvard Law School. Examining the evidentiary record of Jesus convinced him to become a Christian. You can read it for free:https://archive.org/details/testimonyevange00tiscgoog 2
Tsuzuki Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, JAHS said: Religion is a matter of faith; not scientific evidence. If it was it would be a science and not a religion. You just have to choose to believe and go from there. It' a different kind of evidence you see as you enjoy the blessings one receives in your life by choosing to believe. Not all religions are faith-based. My own religion (Thelema) encourages skepticism and critical thinking. Edited May 3, 2017 by Tsuzuki
RevTestament Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: concluding that there was a man named Jesus doesn't help an unbeliever believe in God, necessarily. There were numerous people who bore witness of Yeshua and His miracles - finally, His resurrection from the dead. The scriptures bear witness that He was YHWH Elohim with the Father, see Gen 3:22, and would be sent in the name of the Father, Deut 18:18:21. This tells us He was "God" in English parlance. We also have Hebrews Hebrews 1:8-9 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy athrone, O God, is for bever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. We know this is calling Jesus Elohim because it is quoting: Psalm 45:6-7 6 Thy athrone, O God/Elohim, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Peter was the "signature" that AtheistMormon is looking for. He signed his testimony with his death. This is why Jesus told him he was a stone, and that His kingdom would be built upon it, and would not fail. Peter's stone is that signature: John 21: 18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. There really is no denying that Jesus had a major impact on the lives of His followers. They became believers. They laid down their lives for Him. What better signature could anyone ask for? It's not like they just claimed there was this fella who did x and y. AtheistMormon makes it clear Jesus didn't write these things. His followers wrote about Him and then most of them died for Him. What better record could any man ask? The story also happens to fulfill prophecy of the coming of the Messiah in Daniel 9, as well as many other pieces of the OT. I believe in genetics and evolution too. These things do not exclude a belief in the Bible. The Bible says God created animals to bring forth after their own kind - that is exactly what the law of genetics teach us they do - just how they do it. The Bible also refers to the seven "days" of creation as "the generations of the earth when it was created," and applies them to the 7 seals which are thousand year periods. So the Bible does not strictly apply the 7 "days" to seven earth day periods, but refers to them allegorically - much like the symbols in the garden of Eden are allegorical - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - the tree of life, etc. Reading these things strictly literally just doesn't help one understand what is truly going on, and causes testimony problems for people like AtheistMormon. The scriptures plainly tell us that it was Yeshua who opened the eyes of the followers to the meaning of the scriptures. Many things were in scripture which were not made manifest until He came. They had hidden meaning until they became manifested. Much of the OT is like this. Genesis is like this. The tree of life is introduced right away, but is not understood until later. Believing that there was some green plant in the Garden of Eden(or maybe gold) set apart from the other trees, and was called the tree of life, is just missing the meaning of the story - it's allegorical. If one does not read the word "days" in Genesis 1 strictly as a modern earth day, then I believe the "conflict" with science fades away. In fact the order of creation is essentially just like science believes - first the sea creatures, then birds and animals - last man. What if one reads these as the six generations of the creation of the earth like Genesis says? Does that break some rule of Biblical interpretation? Or is God just using this to create a seven-day calendar for purposes of His own like creating a certain order of things?
Tsuzuki Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 10 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Peter was the "signature" that AtheistMormon is looking for. He signed his testimony with his death. This is why Jesus told him he was a stone, and that His kingdom would be built upon it, and would not fail. Peter's stone is that signature: Martyrdom doesn't make a witness any less biased. 1
RevTestament Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, Tsuzuki said: Martyrdom doesn't make a witness any less biased. It does in my book. Most people won't die for a fraud they are perpetrating... Or for a lie they wish to spread... 1
Tsuzuki Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, RevTestament said: It does in my book. Most people won't die for a fraud they are perpetrating... Or for a lie they wish to spread... People die for falsehoods all the time. I'm sure most of them believe in what they are dying for, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. 1
RevTestament Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 6 minutes ago, Tsuzuki said: People die for falsehoods all the time. I'm sure most of them believe in what they are dying for, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Yeah, some on death row do. They maintain their innocence until the end. How many else do for them? If all you are saying is that history is full of bias, so what? Yes, you cannot get away from bias in history. Historians record things with their own biases. Tacitus was biased against Christianity, and recorded for us the death of a man named Yeshua under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. That only seems to help the Christian cause.
Tsuzuki Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 18 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Yeah, some on death row do. They maintain their innocence until the end. How many else do for them? Also soldiers and martyrs of religions you don't believe in. 1
Rajah Manchou Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: It would be so wonderful if Jesus left a signature like this Dinosaur did. Ask and ye shall receive... "The Chapel of the Ascension is a mosque where Jesus ascended to heaven forty days after his resurrection. Inside of the mosque, there is a stone which has the footprint of Jesus from where he last stood." Edited May 3, 2017 by Rajah Manchou 3
JLHPROF Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: When I saw Utah's wilderness first time 26 yrs old, I had little or no knowledge about stuff like Evolution, paleontology or geology. It didn't take me long to be convinced about the origins of the Earth or Humans; it was simply a matter of evidence, which was so abundant in Utah in the form of Rocks, Fossils and geologic strata upon strata laying everywhere. It would be so wonderful if Jesus left a signature like this Dinosaur did. My lifelong struggle with belief would non-existent. But then God's purposes would be defeated because you would never have to operate out of faith. And without faith you cannot return to God. 1
Tsuzuki Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: But then God's purposes would be defeated because you would never have to operate out of faith. And without faith you cannot return to God. That's abusive. I wouldn't want to return to a god like that. 1
JLHPROF Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, Tsuzuki said: That's abusive. I wouldn't want to return to a god like that. That's both scriptural and in keeping with what Joseph taught. We exercise faith first, knowledge second. Just as any child does with their parent. We trust they know better. 2
Tsuzuki Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That's both scriptural and in keeping with what Joseph taught. We exercise faith first, knowledge second. Just as any child does with their parent. We trust they know better. Healthy parents foster faith by providing evidence, not withholding it. 1
RevTestament Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 32 minutes ago, Tsuzuki said: Also soldiers and martyrs of religions you don't believe in. Soldiers usually are obligated to die even if they don't believe in the cause. Martyrs of other religions may falsely believe in their cause - that is true. It doesn't mean they are "lying." They are just misled, and believe some falsehoods. So one must look to the reliability of the record and other things. Yet, being a martyr does tend to make one more reliable than someone simply proclaiming x or y happened. That is what I am maintaining. Do I believe Muhammed's followers? NO. In Islam there is only one witness to the words of Allah who thought he was possessed, and became suicidal. In Christianity there are dozens, and their testimony is built upon the testimony of dozens of more prophets from the OT and the BoM. There is a huge difference in the reliability of the evidence. The Bible has many prophecies which have already come to pass. The BoM also has some. There is a huge foundation upon which to build one's faith. It's not like you are asked to believe in solely one man who believed he was possessed by an evil spirit and had to be convinced by his wife not to commit suicide...
stemelbow Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Tsuzuki said: Healthy parents foster faith by providing evidence, not withholding it. Interesting thought in light of all of this. Those who have faith would say their evidence is God giving them spiritual manifestation of some sort. But such a one can't show that to another. Thus to he who has faith, there is evidence or reason to believe. But he who does not believe, there is no such evidence, because he can't take the notion that another believes as evidence (rightfully so). In this way too, belief in God is less of a choice, more of a "are you a person who has been given that gene that accepts God". in the immortal words of Pres Boyd Packer "why would God do that?" Beats me. The believer is less concerned about criticisms that there is no evidence of God because to him/her God manifests Himself undetected as a believer walks through the wilderness and in many other such places. Edited May 3, 2017 by stemelbow
Popular Post bluebell Posted May 3, 2017 Popular Post Posted May 3, 2017 25 minutes ago, Tsuzuki said: Healthy parents foster faith by providing evidence, not withholding it. Not exactly. I find this quote by Daniel H. Ludlow to be helpful in understanding the relationship between faith and evidence- “The Lord is not adverse to giving signs. He loves to give signs; he greatly desires to provide evidence; he is willing to prove all his works. But, these signs, evidences, and proofs have real meaning and significance only to those who have faith. Signs follow faith; they do not precede it. Signs are given to help develop faith already present; they are not given to produce or replace faith." 6
Tsuzuki Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 8 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Interesting thought in light of all of this. Those who have faith would say their evidence is God giving them spiritual manifestation of some sort. But such a one can't show that to another. Thus to he who has faith, there is evidence or reason to believe. But he who does not believe, there is no such evidence, because he can't take the notion that another believes as evidence (rightfully so). In this way too, belief in God is less of a choice, more of a "are you a person who has been given that gene that accepts God". If this is true, then it is evidence of multiple Gods. Mine is Horus, the Hawk-headed mystical Lord of the current Aeon.
JLHPROF Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 12 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The believer is less concerned about criticisms that there is no evidence of God because to him/her God manifests Himself undetected as a believer walks through the wilderness and in many other such places. What a nice way of stating things. I like that. God has manifested himself undetected to me on many occasions, and some have certainly felt like the wilderness. 2
JLHPROF Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 1 minute ago, bluebell said: Not exactly. I find this quote by Daniel H. Ludlow to be helpful in understanding the relationship between faith and evidence- “The Lord is not adverse to giving signs. He loves to give signs; he greatly desires to provide evidence; he is willing to prove all his works. But, these signs, evidences, and proofs have real meaning and significance only to those who have faith. Signs follow faith; they do not precede it. Signs are given to help develop faith already present; they are not given to produce or replace faith." Seeing isn't believing. Believing is seeing. 2
Recommended Posts