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

Are you avoiding the question? By all means, grace us with your apologetics of the god that made that man blind from birth. Because either "god did it" (for a number of possible reasons claimed by theistic apologetics) and then god is a moral monster; or then god didn't do it but is powerless or indifferent to stop it and then, why is he a god that merits worshipping?

Regarding the man blind from his birth, God sustains and permits everything that happens, even the (moral and natural evil).

God will sustain and permits the existence of evil forever (in an isolated way: Hell).

The cause of blindness of that man (his name was Celidonius) was not inherited moral evil but natural evil.

God is the only one who can make (greater) good from evil. That's the very point why Jesus said that.

Nobody else can make good from evil. If you start with evil you will continue with evil.

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

Not a good analogy. The god of the Bible made it entirely impossible for someone to escape suffering and death in the physical domain, the only one we can universally verify that exists. While many people find themselves trapped by political situations, they can always attempt to escape and some do it successfully, so it's not an inevitability.

He provided a very simple escape from the worse consequence of the original sin.

You can escape from a tyrannical country but not without some inevitable sacrifice.

Even moving from a house to another in the same street demands some inevitable unpleasant situations.

That's how things work.

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

(You are in contradiction with the Scriptures, then. When asked by his disciples if a man had been born blind because of the sins of his forebearers, Jesus denied that it was so. He also denied that he was blind for something he had done himself. (John 9:1-3) In turn, Jesus suggested that God had si gled out this man to suffer decades of blindness so that he could perform a heal miracle spectacle to awe people. This explanation also makes god look like a moral monster who plays with people's lives and doesn't really care for their suffering.

This is a very controversial event. It's used to defend Calvinism. This is a very very long discussion.

In any case, a god that makes someone pay for the sins of his forebearers is a moral monster who doesn't deserve to be worshipped.

It's not sinS and not all ancestors.

It's a very specific sin regarding the human nature itself committed only by the first souled human couple in a very specific situation (somewhere in Mesopotamia about 6.000 years ago).

The physical Eden is a recent interpretation. The old traditions said the Eden are in the spiritual realm (the paradise that Jesus told to the good thief and/or the Bosom of Abraham. Islam has the same view).

More than our ancestors they were representing the very human nature. Just like an entire country must face the consequences of the acts from their leaders. Even those who didn't vote (or agree with) in the leaders must face the consequences too.

It's not that hard to understand that.

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

@deegee

OMG! Please consider my paranormal experience as an ordinary delusion.

Nothing what I'm talking about depends on this personal experience.

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).

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann