Posts by hmike

5

Do Mormons have "History Studies" with new potential converts?

by hubert in

the history study subject has come up lately concerning j.w.

's, which got me to thinking, is there a history study for mormons?

if so, do they have a "history" book that they use?

hmike

Where's Qcmbr for this topic?

28

King Herod, and his "slaughter of the innocents"

by stevenyc in

matt 2:16 "then herod, seeing he had been outwitted by the astrologers, fell into a great rage, and he sent out and had all the boys in beth lehem and in all its districts done away with, from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers".

does anyone know if there is any historical evidence to support king herod's mass killing of children under the age of two, when christ was born.. i can't find any.

that whole chapter seams to me not to be so much a historical report, but more a justification.. .

hmike

hmike, here's something I have found increasingly difficult to understand: how come believers cringe from the idea of God having people write up a fictional story, while they seem to be comfortable with the idea of God "engineering" a real slaughter for the sake of having the story written?

Narkissos,

I understand your point, really. Personally, I don't subscribe to the theology that has God as some cosmic puppeteer controlling every tiny detail of every event--I don't think the overall picture supplied by the Bible texts indicates that. What I see is that there is a certain natural order to things that sometimes God intervenes into, but sometimes not, for whatever reason. Paul and others also indicate that there are forces at work to intended to undermine the work of God. So, I don't see that God would have brought about these murders. I can't give any answer as to why God wouldn't have stopped Herod, and anything I could suggest would be pure speculation on my part. One thing I always come back to is, "If the men who wrote the Bible didn't have a problem with it, how can I?"

I really don't have a problem with anyone suggesting that accounts in Bible texts may be invented--the information available certainly can be interpreted that way. What I have a problem with is a confident claim that it is the ONLY explanation. There are members of this forum who are unsure of what position to take. I just want to make sure this other position is represented as a reasonable alternative--which I see that it is.

The problem, from my experience, is that often what starts as honest belief becomes pretense of belief, and this proves to be a heavy burden in the long run. Still we may waste many years pretending, without even admitting it to ourselves.

That's interesting. Would you elaborate on that for me?

28

King Herod, and his "slaughter of the innocents"

by stevenyc in

matt 2:16 "then herod, seeing he had been outwitted by the astrologers, fell into a great rage, and he sent out and had all the boys in beth lehem and in all its districts done away with, from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers".

does anyone know if there is any historical evidence to support king herod's mass killing of children under the age of two, when christ was born.. i can't find any.

that whole chapter seams to me not to be so much a historical report, but more a justification.. .

hmike

Narkissos,

I have to say that I don't see any indication of where Joseph and Mary originally came from.

You wrote:

And after being warned in a dream, he went away (not "back") to the district of Galilee.

"Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel

Then why not "return to the land of Israel."

28

King Herod, and his "slaughter of the innocents"

by stevenyc in

matt 2:16 "then herod, seeing he had been outwitted by the astrologers, fell into a great rage, and he sent out and had all the boys in beth lehem and in all its districts done away with, from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers".

does anyone know if there is any historical evidence to support king herod's mass killing of children under the age of two, when christ was born.. i can't find any.

that whole chapter seams to me not to be so much a historical report, but more a justification.. .

hmike

It always seems to come down to two possibilities: (A) men manufactured stories to support some assertion about some characteristic of God or the existence of God, or (B) God engineered the events, the events support the existence of God or something about God, and men just wrote them down. Same details, two different perspectives. As I said: either side requires presumptions and assumptions. If LouBelle or anyone else wants to accept these events as historical, that’s just as legit as any other perspective

28

King Herod, and his "slaughter of the innocents"

by stevenyc in

matt 2:16 "then herod, seeing he had been outwitted by the astrologers, fell into a great rage, and he sent out and had all the boys in beth lehem and in all its districts done away with, from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers".

does anyone know if there is any historical evidence to support king herod's mass killing of children under the age of two, when christ was born.. i can't find any.

that whole chapter seams to me not to be so much a historical report, but more a justification.. .

hmike

You guys are starting to make me wobble.

LouBelle,

Rulers in ancient times had a lot of latitude to do what they wanted without any repercussions from the government or public opinion. After all, they WERE the law. If Herod wanted to put a few children to death in a remote town, who was going to stop him or hold him accountable? The Romans wouldn't care since it didn't involve Roman citizens. As long as order was maintained, anything was fine with them. The Jews were certainly too scared of Herod to protest.

As Neomadman wrote, this would have confined to a small town. This wasn't Jerusalem. And we may overestimate the scale on which it occurred--there is no count given. It's entirely possible that something like this could escape notice by the few historians there were, or that any documentation has been lost.

We have no extra-Biblical historical record either way--in support or denial of this event. If we choose not to accept Matthew's account, the only truly legitimate conclusion we can come to is, "We don't know." Any opinion either way involves presuppositions and assumptions. At this point, any evidence proposed to deny that this event actually occured is circumstantial, and not even strong at that.

Also, Matthew only states that the Magi found Mary and Jesus in Bethlehem. It doesn't say how long the family had been there, or what brought them there.

In short, there is no solid evidence to deny this could have been an historical event as recorded.

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

hmike

So I agree with you to a point, but, these aren't even close to most of the atheists out there. Most of em just don't care.

Yes, over all, I think you're right. I covered that is this statement:

Some take the default position because they found they can live their lives without God, so they do.

Yes, life without acknowledging God is possible, even a successful life (by society's standards), so why bother?

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

hmike

Believe me, Daunt, I don't categorize people as atheist, agnostic, or anything else in my relationships with them. Personally, I don't like labels--I don't like the way they divide people. I only used those terms in this thread for convenience. I notice most non-believers here use the term atheist for themselves.

I don't judge people (that's not my place) and I don't try to save them (I don't have the power to do that). Everybody has a right to their own opinion and I respect that. Everybody believes something. Ususally, I find that most people adopt a position that is not well-researched or thought-out, and this applies to professing Christians and non-Christians alike. I encourage everyone to investigate their position further. I'm always open to learning new things. (I will admit that my nearly lifelong experiences as a believer provide me with enough evidence for my own satisfaction, but I also realize it is subjective and thus not valid as proof.) It's been my experience that most objections to accepting God are not grounded in a proper understanding of what the Bible claims, and I attempt to answer those objections as best I can to individuals.

I think I need to clarify something I said earlier about "No God--no standards." What I actually meant is NOT that people have NO standards, it's just that they are free to set their own. It's comes from the survival mechanism we all have in our brains. The person's mind blocks any consideration of the existence of God because if it accepted that a God with standards existed, it would openly have to accept or reject those standards, but the person wants to be free to make choices that are outside of the standards. Therefore, in order to be free to do whatever one wants and be right about it, the existence of God is denied. It's like, "If there's nothing wrong with me, then I don't need treatment. I don't want the treatment. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with me."

I'm not saying all non-believers use this approach.

31

Question About The Religion

by ImACatholic in

jehovah's witnesses do not believe or teach some of the very basic tenets of christian doctrine.

1. the trinity.

2. the omnipresence of god.

hmike

Welcome (if you're still checking in).

Are you planning to stick around? We've had a lot of hit-and-run evangelists lately.

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

hmike

Daunt and Tetrapod suggest I spend more time with atheists.

In 40+ years of being a Christian, I have talked to more than a few non-believers. Unlike some believers, I don't surround (insulate) myself with like-minded people--I've always had more non-Christian friends than Christian. Nor do I shy away from hostile environments, which is why I remain around here.

I could include other reasons why people don't believe. Some take the default position because they found they can live their lives without God, so they do. Others base their reasons on what they think the Bible says, or how they think God is--which, if they took the time to investigate it, would not hold up.

I guess I just haven't been around the right kind of atheists?

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

hmike

hey hmike, thanks for dropping by again.

Thanks tetrapod. I think with this post I will have said enough.

There's no way to prove the existence or non-existence of God in a way that is satisfactory to all since God can't be observed or detected or tested by any scientific means.

What makes this whole proof-of-God issue problematic to me is that if the God of the Bible really exists, He has control over whether or not his existence can be proven. In other words, He is not just some life form or celestial phenomenon passively waiting out there to be discovered. He would have complete control over who would learn of Him and the manner in which that would occur. Does that render the search useless? No. It just means that things are done on His terms, not ours.

Something about the possibility of God's existence that amazes me: I recently saw a show on the Science Channel about parallel universes. Apparently scientists have mathematically determined the existence of parallel universes in dimensions outside the four we are familiar with. Some scientists were speculating about life in these universes, which could co-exist with our own without our awareness of them. Now if science is willing to go this far, what makes the existence of God and heaven so incredible? Heaven could be one of those parallel universes, and spiritual beings the intelligent life form. It's seems strange what people are willing to believe--UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligent life, ghosts, psychic phenomena, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster--and not believe in the existence of God, or at least some kind of supreme being.

This brings me to the question of what kind of proof would be satisfactory to the skeptics? Suppose that Jesus himself ripped open the interdimensional door and revealed the host of heaven. Would some maintain that it's all an illusion, mass hallucination, or some other kind of deception? Would it be explained as something else?

Frankly, it's been my experience that most atheists don't take their stand based purely on intellectual reasons, that is, they didn't start from a neutral position and come to their conclusion based on a thorough investigation of all the evidence. There are basically three reasons I've found to be most common:

(1) They insist on a "closed" system in nature, that is, only things that conform to known physical laws are acceptable. Miracles are not possible because they violate the natural order of things--what is known and accepted. No influence from the outside can exist. (Related to that is, “It hasn't happened in my life or to anyone I know, therefore it doesn’t happen at all.”).

(2) Accepting the reality of the Biblical God means being accountable, and people want to live their lives the way they want ("We will not have this man king over us"). No God--no standards.

(3) The position that God isn't real is springs from emotional reasons--being hurt, deceived, or abused by Christians, a church or other organization, or from something they feel God did or didn't do that hurt or disappointed them: accident, death of a loved one, unanswered prayer... Any subsequent evidence against the existence of God is used to support or justify that position.

There are some people who have chosen not to accept the existence of God for intellectual reasons. Far too much of the evidence for that position is taken as established fact when actually it is circumstantial, and even weak at that.

I think I've made enough people mad at me for now. If I've gotten anyone to re-examine a position that has been taken for granted, then I've accomplished something by this post. For those who have done an impartial, honest, thorough examination of all the arguments and come to a conclusion, how can I dispute it? Ultimately, each one of us is responsible for our own path, and each one of us lives and dies according to it.

Best Regards,

Mike