Posts by John

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

So the condemnation of death, suffering due to Adam's sin, fell on all of Adam's offspring AUTOMATICALLY for a transgression committed by someone else.

Just not by someone else but by the first human couple to receive a soul. And everybody who possess a soul is a descendant of them. Even though it's not considered a personal sin but an inherited sin through the very human nature. The worse consequence of this original sin is the eternal perdition of the soul.

Yet, Jesus' ransom is not applied the same way - it is NOT AUTOMATIC, yet beneficiaries have to believe in Jesus and his ransom sacrifice, exercise faith in Jesus and his ransom sacrifice and work at proving worthy of "grace".

Exactly.

This is not fair. Since the condemnation was AUTOMATIC and not the fault of Adam's descendants, the ransom should likewise be AUTOMATIC. Christianity unfairly stacks the odds against the innocent offspring of Adam who inherited his sin through no fault of their own.
It is a fundamentally immoral worldview where the innocent are blamed and punished for the sins of their ancestors.
There is no justice system in the world which requires innocent children to pay the penalty for a crime committed by their parents.

Well this is your opinion.

My opinion is I can't escape from all consequences of the acts (physical and metaphysical) done by my ancestors (all of them).

But my immediate ancestors (my parents) baptized me when I was a baby in an unpainful and inexpensive way. I think the procedure of baptism is very fair compared to the possibility to get an eternal reward.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

It's because it sounds unusual to the point of not being believable.

Yes I know. The well informed Athenians had the same reaction in the Areopagus. I had the same reaction too. Christianity is really a very original and intriguing thing. Sadly we were being exposed to several caricatures of Christianity.

"You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean."- Acts 17:20

But if this is true, then why haven't the majority of us had this...what sounds like..an hallucination? Why would you be picked out as special?

I'm no more special than you.

You see, this is why it sounds like you are ragging us, deluding yourself or in need of professional help. I admit that sounds harsh, but it's for your own good.

Thanks for the advice. I like psychology.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

The only reason why Jesus was baptized by John is that Jesus was initially a disciple of John, who later on started his own sect of radical, messianic judaism.

Yes.

That's the simple truth that the early christian writers attempted to obfuscate when they wrote the gospels. Because that would undermine the belief that Jesus had been God's anointed envoy.

Yes.

Of course, that's the explanation that the later followers of chistianity had to come up with to say that the baptism of Jesus was superior to that of John. This happened in a time when the disciples of John who didn't buy into Jesus' sect were still raising controversy with the Jesus followers, as it is vaguely documented in Acts. The fact that the author of Acts even mentioned it (only to then tell the story that those had finally converted to christianity) denotes that this controversy was still well alive still many decades after Jesus' death and was a theological problem for the early Christian congregation. That is why (not a coincidence!) only Luke and Matthew tell the story that John Baptist wanted to be sure that Jesus was the messiah (Matthew 11:3; Luke 7:18, 19), to give the impression that even John Baptist accepted Jesus as the messiah.

Yes.

This story is implausible and probably never took place, and that's why Mark (the earliest gospel) and John don't mention it.

Actually is the opposite. Read about criterion of embarrassment.

Still, if baptism is an essential sacrament for salvation, why weren't the apostles baptized by Jesus?

The CC teaches 4 forms of baptism: water (usual), blood (martyrdom) , desire (like the crucified thief and people subject to invincible ignorance) and fire (pentecost).

In all of these forms the Holy Spirit is received.

The tradition says the Apostles were baptized by John too and later baptized by fire.

Every Apostle (less John) were martyrs.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

With respect, and I don't wish to appear nasty, but -
Why is it all about you? What makes you so special above others? - punkofnice

It's very surprising to me you all sticked to my vision axiom when I said my acceptance of theism is due to three things.

I was expecting the vision thing to be discarded as rubbish and the discussion would follow refutation about the St. Anselm's ontological argument and the Pascal's wager.

But why me? I suppose you are talking about my paranormal experience.

Well, we x-JW's are a very specific group of people. A lot of things in our lives are just understandable to other x-JW's. We have a metaphysical bond.

In a sense we are a nation. Maybe the purpose was to bring a new way of exposition of Christianity to x-JW's.

I like this idea. :)

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

If God can give you a vision, then why doesn't God speak to the Catholic Church and tell them which is the correct view? Why has God left the CC floundering and guessing on this matter?

My experience didn't tell me nothing directly. It was just "there are very convincing paranormal events". About the views of atonement, is a technical issue and maybe there are several reasons to it. A lot of things have several functions. And the views of CC are not excludent.

5. If God can give you a vision, then why hasn't God appeared to the 40,000 Christian denominations and given all of them the same interpretation of the Bible so that they are all in agreement?
. For that matter, if God can give you a vision, then why hasn't God appeared to the all of the various religions in the world, explain where they are misinterpreting his wishes, tells them what he really wants, what he really desires from humanity in order to end religious schism, division, confusion and discord?

According to the WT February 2017 par.12, p.26 - "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible."

So the GB has admitted that God/the Holy Spirit does not speak to /communicate with them. Yet you claim that God, via an angel, gave you a vision?

God contacts/communicates with you but not the GB?

Why would God contact/communicate with you but not the GB?

Isn't the GB equally seeking God's will and praying to him, so why isn't God answering them, speaking with them, communicating with them, contacting them as he does you?

I didn't had a vision that can be directly applied to these situations.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

1. So why did you initially deny that your vision was from God?

When you said "received by God himself" I understood like a pizza boy.

2. How do you know that your vision is not convincing to anyone else?

It's convincing to me. Idk about others.

Have you told anyone else about the specific details/ specific content of your vision?

Yes.

You refused to provide the specific details/ specific content of your vision when someone from this forum asked you to share that information.

I just share this information irl.

3. What about your vision makes you certain that it was from God via an angel?
How were you able to tell that your vision was from God via an angel?

It's a personal axiom (I'd experienced a paranormal event). Just like I accept the several axioms in the scientific method (the entire physical world is understandable to human mind, for instance).

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Wrong. Jesus himself never performed a baptism. He was baptized by John, who performed baptisms in the same fashion the Essenes had been practising for nearly a century already. The passage of Matthew 28:19, 20 (like many sayings attributed to Jesus in this gospel, also in Luke) is most likely a later adition to justify the practice of baptism by the christians. Actually, one of the most well established events of Jesus's life is also one of the things that caused more embarassments to the early christians: the fact that Jesus was baptized by John, thus being his disciple. THIS was an embarassing fact that the early christian writers had to get very creative in order to make it look otherwise. In turn, around those explanations, a whole new theology was then constructed.

I didn't mean he invented the ritual of baptism. Baptism is a ritual of Hinduism too.

But he gave a new meaning and function to it.

The baptism of Jesus (not in the sense it was performed directly by Him) is totally different from the baptism of John.

Yes, Jesus being baptized by John was not necessary and actually an apparent contradiction. That's why historians are comfortable to accept the historicity of this event. The existence of John is well documented outside the Bible. Actually he was much more popular than Jesus even after the crucifixion.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Yeah, that's doesn't sound right to me either. It would be like if someone was pardoned for their crimes by a ruler but still had to stay in prison. What's the point of the pardon?

It's like some murder pardoned for his crime by a ruler and being released from prison. But the act of forgiveness does not erases the death of the victim of murder.

But the consequences will be erased too. Just not at the same time of forgiveness.

Why remove just the GUILT and not the CONSEQUENCES SIMULTANEOUSLY?

Idk. Maybe it's an inevitable thing.

Are you saying that God rather remove the GUILT for something which we did not do instead of its CONSEQUENCES

We also inherited the financial status of our parents and we live for some time with their financial status. Even though we have no merit or guilt about it.

Same thing to our place of birth, language, relatives, etc...

Same thing to our metaphysical inheritance.

Of course everything above can be changed (not in an instant) at will some point in life.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Why you? Why not everyone else?

AFAIK I'm not the only one person to have a vision. Not the first and not the last too.

What greater good does it serve?

A lot to me.

How will it make others believe?

Its purpose was to make me to believe. But maybe it can help others indirectly.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

So is it Jesus' death that erases the guilt of original sin or is it baptism that erases the guilt of original sin?

Jesus himself instituted baptism. Baptism is called a sacrament or sign. A sign is something that points to something greater than the sign itself. The baptism is our turn to do something in order to sign an agreement with Jesus.

The sacrifice of Christ it's only effective to those who believe. The baptism is a public and physical demonstration of faith.

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann