OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 02:37:51 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Christianity?  (Read 6786 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deuteros
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 92



« on: April 16, 2010, 01:04:09 PM »

Why the Christian God? Why are you a Christian as opposed to a Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc.?

What would you say to someone who asked a question like this?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2010, 01:06:17 PM »

Should only responses from Eastern Orthodox Christians be given?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2010, 01:07:31 PM »

Why not Christianity?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
deuteros
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 92



« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2010, 01:13:08 PM »

Should only responses from Eastern Orthodox Christians be given?

Preferably but not necessarily.

Why not Christianity?

Why not Islam? Why not Buddhism?
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2010, 01:21:32 PM »

Why the Christian God? Why are you a Christian as opposed to a Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc.?

What would you say to someone who asked a question like this?

From a Virgin didst Thou come, not as an ambassador, nor as an angel, but the very Lord Himself incarnate, and didst save me, the whole man. (Supplicatory Canon to Our Lord Jesus Christ)
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,796



« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2010, 01:41:44 PM »

From the Anaphora of the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom:

"Priest: ...Holy art Thou, and All-holy, Thou and thine Only-begotten Son and thy Holy Spirit. Holy art Thou, and All-holy, and magnificent is thy glory: Who hast so loved thy world as to give thine Only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life;

Who, having come, and having fulfilled all the dispensation for us, on the night He was delivered up, or rather delivered Himself up, for the life of the world, took bread in his holy, immaculate, and blameless hands and, when He had given thanks, and blessed, and hallowed, and broken it, gave it to his holy disciples and apostles, saying: Take, eat: This is my Body, Which is broken for you, for the remission of sins.

People: Amen.

Priest: In like manner, after supper, He took the cup, saying:Drink from it, all of you: This is my Blood of the new testament, Which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.

People: Amen."

From John 6: 53-58:

"53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,451


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2010, 09:20:45 PM »

The Logos, the reason for our existence, entered into our existence.  God became man and dwelt among us.

The only religion today where God becomes tangible while remaining God, and with surprising inner consistency in the dogmas of the church maintains her consistency in being exclusive.

A religion which brought about a moral/social revolution and freedom all at the same time because of Him, without the use of sword, deception, compromising, or passivity, but actively witnessing, being Gods in the presence of all.

And through Christ, I am promised resurrection, life eternal, and communion with His Divine Nature, with HIM most importantly, through which promises me eternal Peace, peace of mind and death to my curiosities.  Where nothing else matters.

« Last Edit: April 16, 2010, 09:26:09 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2010, 11:27:03 AM »

Why the Christian God? Why are you a Christian as opposed to a Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc.?

What would you say to someone who asked a question like this?

From a Virgin didst Thou come, not as an ambassador, nor as an angel, but the very Lord Himself incarnate, and didst save me, the whole man. (Supplicatory Canon to Our Lord Jesus Christ)

But that quote by it's very natures assumes one already believes Christian theology. It's not really a good answer in my mind because it presupposes that Christian teaching is in fact true.

When/if someone actually asks you the question "why Christianity and not Judaism, Hinduism etc?" one cannot say "because the Church teaches . . . ." because by doing so one is beginning with the presupposition that Christianity is true.

Most people who ask this type of question are not beginning with the idea that Christianity is true, and so arguing "well because it's true" is not a valid answer.

Think of it in reverse, say in the case of asking a Muslim "why Islam and not Christianity?" And they answer to you "because Islam is true!" or they answer "because the Quran teaches . . . ." would you just as readily accept their answer? Of course you wouldn't because they are appealing to teachings or writings or prayers or hymns that ASSUME one is already a believer in Islam. Just as if I asked a Neo-Pagan "why do you worship Apollo?" and they answered by quoting some Pagan hymn to Apollo. That's not an answer for the non believer in said faith.

the hymn and prayer you quoted are beautiful, but I don't think it's going to convince anyone who has come to the point of asking that question of others, or have asked it of themselves. (and I speak from experience with asking it of myself)








Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2010, 05:37:01 PM »

Why the Christian God? Why are you a Christian as opposed to a Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc.?

What would you say to someone who asked a question like this?

From a Virgin didst Thou come, not as an ambassador, nor as an angel, but the very Lord Himself incarnate, and didst save me, the whole man. (Supplicatory Canon to Our Lord Jesus Christ)

But that quote by it's very natures assumes one already believes Christian theology. It's not really a good answer in my mind because it presupposes that Christian teaching is in fact true.

When/if someone actually asks you the question "why Christianity and not Judaism, Hinduism etc?" one cannot say "because the Church teaches . . . ." because by doing so one is beginning with the presupposition that Christianity is true.

Most people who ask this type of question are not beginning with the idea that Christianity is true, and so arguing "well because it's true" is not a valid answer.

Think of it in reverse, say in the case of asking a Muslim "why Islam and not Christianity?" And they answer to you "because Islam is true!" or they answer "because the Quran teaches . . . ." would you just as readily accept their answer? Of course you wouldn't because they are appealing to teachings or writings or prayers or hymns that ASSUME one is already a believer in Islam. Just as if I asked a Neo-Pagan "why do you worship Apollo?" and they answered by quoting some Pagan hymn to Apollo. That's not an answer for the non believer in said faith.

the hymn and prayer you quoted are beautiful, but I don't think it's going to convince anyone who has come to the point of asking that question of others, or have asked it of themselves. (and I speak from experience with asking it of myself)

I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't think Christianity were true. My answer is a valid answer, though it was not meant to be a complete one. It is not invalid to speak from a position of faith when speaking about faith. I have no desire to go about trying to be 'objective,' and in any event, nonbelief is not more objective than faith.

I will clarify the point of my original post. I wanted to address "Why the Christian God?" i.e., why not some other religion? To answer that question one has to address the specific content of Christian revelation vs. Islamic revelation, for example. Obviously one would not say 'Because its true,' because that's not very helpful to your questioner who can't verify it except by faith. But one can, indeed must, mention the beliefs/doctrines of one's chosen religion. Whether or not Jesus Christ is God, it is a verifiable fact that the Church teaches that He is. That is what I was pointing out. I am attracted to that teaching over against Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian teaching. I was attracted to Christianity, even before I believed, by the beauty of its theology, represented by the quote I chose. I was particularly interested in how Christianity, especially Orthodox Christianity, promises salvation for the "whole man." In my mind, the Incarnation of God is the only thing that can bring wholeness to my own being and to the world. See Søren Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments. So when I was an unbeliever, but looking into Christianity, I must admit that I wanted Christianity to be true whether is was or not. (Lucky for me, it is true! LOL)
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2010, 05:54:55 PM »

The answer was already given in the supplicatory canon.   All other faiths are established by abassadors, angels, and prophets.  Christianity alone was established by God incarnate.   Christianity alone provides a means by which we attain unity with the divine being without our personhood being annihilated.   Furthermore, the Septuagint is clear:  "the gods of the nations are demons."  Therefore, the polytheism of Hinduism, for example, is simply that of created spirits, not of the uncreated God.  There is no uncreated god in Hinduism, all are synchronous with nature's being.  Buddhism likewise offers naturalism and semi-polytheism (atheism by the standard of an uncreated God).  Islam and Judaism, however, according to St. John of Damascus, do not offer a different God but rather a wrong view of the true God.     
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2010, 05:56:54 PM »

Christianity alone provides a means by which we attain unity with the divine being without our personhood being annihilated. 

Exactly.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2010, 06:20:26 PM »

"All religions, and I propose, all philosophies of life, all ideologies, talk about sin, albeit in different terms. But not one of them other than Christianity believes that human nature in its current state is ill. Christianity affirms that the condition in which we people are born, exist, grow, are educated, take courage, mature, the state in which we find enjoyment, amusement, learning, make discoveries, etc., is a state of serious illness, bringing us profound harm. We are ill, but not with flu, bronchitis, or psychiatric illness. We are physically and psychologically well, we are capable of solving problems, and can fly into space. Nonetheless, we are gravely ill; in the beginning unified human nature sustained a strange and tragic fracture, dividing into apparently autonomously existing and frequently warring mind, heart, and body. Such a comment evokes universal indignation. "Isn’t Christianity being absurd?" "Me, abnormal? Sorry, others may be, but I am not!" If Christianity is correct, this is the root problem, the reason human life, life of the individual and of all mankind, goes from one tragedy to another. If man is seriously ill but does not try to heal the sickness because he is unaware of it, it will do him harm.

Other religions do not comprehend that man has such an illness. They believe that man is a healthy seed that can develop either normally or abnormally, with development dependent upon his social milieu, economic conditions, psychological factors, and many other things.

Man can be either good or bad, but by nature he is good. In this lies the principle antithesis, the consciousness of the non-Christian. I am not even addressing the non-religious, for whom the term "man" seems like an "exercise in pride." Only Christianity affirms that our current state is a deeply damaged one, so damaged that no one can by himself repair it.

This is the fundamental truth on which the great Christian dogma of Christ as Savior is built. This idea is the principle watershed between Christianity and the other religions."
- Speech given by AI Osipov.


and...

"An old story is told about a drunk who fell into a pit. The sides of the pit were so steep and he was so inebriated that he could not get out. He cried in alarm to anyone who would hear him.

A Jew walked by, stopped, took out the Psalms and quoted:-

“I am reckoned among those who go down to the pit; I am a man who has no strength” (Ps 88:4)

“My son,” he said, observe God’s Law and you will not stumble.” With that he walked on by.

A Muslim walked to the edge of the pit, peered over and declaimed: “You are a drunk, an unbeliever. First submit both Allah and to his laws, then you will know Paradise.” In disgust, he also walked away hurriedly.

A Hindu approached, a sage. “Your karma is now set by this deed. There is nothing you can do. Accept death and on your next rebirth perhaps your soul will make more progress.” The sage calmly walked away.

A Buddhist monk approached and with compassion he looked down on the man and tried to teach him to meditate. “Try to extinguish your desires … for earthly freedom, even for life itself. With desire comes suffering. With the right mental attitude you too can attain nibbana.” The monk retreated from the pit with a beatific smile on his face.

The drunk man grumbled noisily to himself in the pangs of his pain that all men were the same. With much difficulty he slumped and forward and fell into a fitful sleep.

Suddenly he was rudely awoken by a rough fellow gently shaking him. This man had let himself down into the pit with a rope.

The descent was so difficult beset with sharp stones, briars and obstacles that his hands and body were bleeding.

He took a spare rope, tied it round the drunken man’s waist who fell silent in disbelief. The drunk felt himself dragged to the side of the pit whereupon his rescuer strapped them both together and raised them up on a pulley fixed into the edge of the top of the pit for that purpose.

As they both stood out of the pit into the sunshine, unshackled, the drunken man, who was now a little more sober, looked round. The stranger had gone but there was a rather odd charge that lingered on in the air. He did not feel alone.

He looked back into the pit and thought thankfully about the great sacrifice this Man had made to save him."


http://antiochabouna.blogspot.com/2007/12/christ-is-born-glorify-him.html

« Last Edit: April 17, 2010, 06:24:42 PM by Ukiemeister » Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2010, 10:03:32 PM »

Why the Christian God? Why are you a Christian as opposed to a Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc.?

What would you say to someone who asked a question like this?

First because I was raised into it, and second because I chose it myself once I got older. Christianity is Incarnational and so it is suppose to start in one place like a seed, and multiply/spreadout all over the planet......if not the Kosmos!

Modern Atheism didn't fall from the sky! It too came from a place.....a classroom or lecture hall some centuries ago in western Europe. And it too had to spread and be taught to people all over the globe.


I would also tell him/her the differences in Worldviews, lifestyles, spirituality, morality.....etc. Then I would tell him/her about the sickness of mankind, the Incarnation, Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ as being the ultimate reason. Then I would ask him/her why wasn't they a christian?




Christ is Risen!
« Last Edit: April 17, 2010, 10:14:50 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2010, 11:19:15 PM »

Like jnorm, I was born into Christianity, and then became convicted of it when I got older.

One of the main reasons I was convicted was the astounding wisdom of not just Jesus, but of the Fathers in particular. It was the supreme explanation of my experiences in life.

Buddhism, Hinduism... all good things, but it is the fulness of the truth in Christian doctrine that first enlightened me. Neither in other religions nor in my personal conjecturing had I ever seen anything comparable to Christianity. Whenever I learn from Christianity, I feel wholeness.

That's one reason. I could make historical/philosophical/miracle-based explanations, but another person would likely be either bored of skeptical with that.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2010, 11:55:54 PM »

I could also invoke Apostolic succession of our bishops--we have a line of people who were ordained specifically to preserve the revelation of the Apostles all the way back to the time of Christ. It is very hard to argue with that.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2010, 04:33:33 AM »

Why would the Apostles have gone through the suffereing, pain, and death they did if they were lying about the resurrection?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2010, 08:46:56 AM »

Why would the Apostles have gone through the suffereing, pain, and death they did if they were lying about the resurrection?

This is exactly what I just posted in another thread!  laugh

I agree 110%!
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2010, 12:56:11 PM »

Why would the Apostles have gone through the suffereing, pain, and death they did if they were lying about the resurrection?

You assume those are the only 2 options, when it fact there are plenty of other options. For example maybe they all THOUGHT and truly believed Jesus rose from the dead, in in fact maybe he did not.

No one is martyred for something they know to be false. The 9/11 hijackers were "true believers", that doesn't make their belief true.

Just to be clear I'm not making the argument that Jesus did not rise from the dead, or that Christianity is not true, only that Christians for the most part need to come up with better arguments when a non believer asks the question "why Christianity and not (fill in the blank religion(s)?" Saying, "well it's true because I say/believe it's true" is NOT an answer someone who is a non believer will accept as valid. Anymore than asking a Muslim why they picked Islam, and they say "because it's true" is an answer for you.





Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2010, 01:02:48 PM »


I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't think Christianity were true.

Of course not. To be in a religion or faith that you didn't deep down think was true (like a Pascal's wager scenario) would be absurd.

Quote
My answer is a valid answer, though it was not meant to be a complete one.

It's valid for YOU, not for most people who would sincerely ask the question as propossed by the OP.




Quote
I will clarify the point of my original post. I wanted to address "Why the Christian God?" i.e., why not some other religion? To answer that question one has to address the specific content of Christian revelation vs. Islamic revelation, for example. Obviously one would not say 'Because its true,' because that's not very helpful to your questioner who can't verify it except by faith. But one can, indeed must, mention the beliefs/doctrines of one's chosen religion. Whether or not Jesus Christ is God, it is a verifiable fact that the Church teaches that He is. That is what I was pointing out.
 I am attracted to that teaching over against Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian teaching. I was attracted to Christianity, even before I believed, by the beauty of its theology, represented by the quote I chose. I was particularly interested in how Christianity, especially Orthodox Christianity, promises salvation for the "whole man." In my mind, the Incarnation of God is the only thing that can bring wholeness to my own being and to the world. See Søren Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments. So when I was an unbeliever, but looking into Christianity, I must admit that I wanted Christianity to be true whether is was or not. (Lucky for me, it is true! LOL)


Now THIS is a good answer! Smiley All I was trying to do was to get to a deeper answer to the question, not just an appeal to Biblical authority as it were. That's all.


Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2010, 02:25:22 PM »

Why would the Apostles have gone through the suffereing, pain, and death they did if they were lying about the resurrection?

You assume those are the only 2 options, when it fact there are plenty of other options. For example maybe they all THOUGHT and truly believed Jesus rose from the dead, in in fact maybe he did not.

No one is martyred for something they know to be false. The 9/11 hijackers were "true believers", that doesn't make their belief true.

Just to be clear I'm not making the argument that Jesus did not rise from the dead, or that Christianity is not true, only that Christians for the most part need to come up with better arguments when a non believer asks the question "why Christianity and not (fill in the blank religion(s)?" Saying, "well it's true because I say/believe it's true" is NOT an answer someone who is a non believer will accept as valid. Anymore than asking a Muslim why they picked Islam, and they say "because it's true" is an answer for you.






I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding. The Apostles' faith in the resurrection is not a faith in something they just happened to "believe". Its more than a generic religious faith. Its a faith in something they actually saw. They claimed to actually see something, and not just one of them but all twelve of them. This is fundamentally different in belief in something you cannot verify and that you have not experienced. If they didn't really see Jesus raised from the dead they could have easily said, "Nope, we didn't see him. Don't kill us. We made the whole thing up."
I had a non-Christian history professor at a liberal and secular university tell my class, "Never had anyone ever been so convinced of something as the Apostles were convinced that they saw the resurrected Christ."
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2010, 03:37:40 PM »

Why would the Apostles have gone through the suffereing, pain, and death they did if they were lying about the resurrection?

You assume those are the only 2 options, when it fact there are plenty of other options. For example maybe they all THOUGHT and truly believed Jesus rose from the dead, in in fact maybe he did not.

No one is martyred for something they know to be false. The 9/11 hijackers were "true believers", that doesn't make their belief true.

Just to be clear I'm not making the argument that Jesus did not rise from the dead, or that Christianity is not true, only that Christians for the most part need to come up with better arguments when a non believer asks the question "why Christianity and not (fill in the blank religion(s)?" Saying, "well it's true because I say/believe it's true" is NOT an answer someone who is a non believer will accept as valid. Anymore than asking a Muslim why they picked Islam, and they say "because it's true" is an answer for you.






I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding. The Apostles' faith in the resurrection is not a faith in something they just happened to "believe". Its more than a generic religious faith. Its a faith in something they actually saw. They claimed to actually see something, and not just one of them but all twelve of them. This is fundamentally different in belief in something you cannot verify and that you have not experienced. If they didn't really see Jesus raised from the dead they could have easily said, "Nope, we didn't see him. Don't kill us. We made the whole thing up."
I had a non-Christian history professor at a liberal and secular university tell my class, "Never had anyone ever been so convinced of something as the Apostles were convinced that they saw the resurrected Christ."
But you still haven't addressed the basic point Northernpines was making: that there are more options than (1) the apostles were lying; or (2) the apostles were telling the truth. Northernpines offered a third option, that the apostles sincerely believed they were telling the truth -- and this sincere belief may have arisen because they sincerely believed they experienced something miraculous.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 03:38:46 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,451


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2010, 03:41:15 PM »

I wouldn't compare the deaths of the Apostles with that of Muslim extremists, not because of differences in faiths or any disrespect.  But rather the way in which they present themselves.

The Apostles faced persecution for their beliefs and they didn't budge.  They encouraged others to move on, and to accept the possibility that others will hate you and kill you.

The flipside of this is that terrorists are not as hated as they hate others.  They are the persecutors, and wrongfully labeled "martyrs" by those who adore their actions.

It's easy to hate, very easy.  It's hard to love the one who persecutes you and still maintain your belief in the Resurrection.  I agree with Papist, this is a strong case for Christianity.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 03:42:59 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2010, 03:51:05 PM »

Why would the Apostles have gone through the suffereing, pain, and death they did if they were lying about the resurrection?

You assume those are the only 2 options, when it fact there are plenty of other options. For example maybe they all THOUGHT and truly believed Jesus rose from the dead, in in fact maybe he did not.

No one is martyred for something they know to be false. The 9/11 hijackers were "true believers", that doesn't make their belief true.

Just to be clear I'm not making the argument that Jesus did not rise from the dead, or that Christianity is not true, only that Christians for the most part need to come up with better arguments when a non believer asks the question "why Christianity and not (fill in the blank religion(s)?" Saying, "well it's true because I say/believe it's true" is NOT an answer someone who is a non believer will accept as valid. Anymore than asking a Muslim why they picked Islam, and they say "because it's true" is an answer for you.






I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding. The Apostles' faith in the resurrection is not a faith in something they just happened to "believe". Its more than a generic religious faith. Its a faith in something they actually saw. They claimed to actually see something, and not just one of them but all twelve of them. This is fundamentally different in belief in something you cannot verify and that you have not experienced. If they didn't really see Jesus raised from the dead they could have easily said, "Nope, we didn't see him. Don't kill us. We made the whole thing up."
I had a non-Christian history professor at a liberal and secular university tell my class, "Never had anyone ever been so convinced of something as the Apostles were convinced that they saw the resurrected Christ."
But you still haven't addressed the basic point Northernpines was making: that there are more options than (1) the apostles were lying; or (2) the apostles were telling the truth. Northernpines offered a third option, that the apostles sincerely believed they were telling the truth -- and this sincere belief may have arisen because they sincerely believed they experienced something miraculous.


Option three: They, along with the female followers of Christ, and the five hundred witnesses all had the same hallucination over a 40 day period. That is kinda hard for me to swallow.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2010, 04:05:12 PM »

You assume those are the only 2 options, when it fact there are plenty of other options. For example maybe they all THOUGHT and truly believed Jesus rose from the dead, in in fact maybe he did not.

Mass hallucination is unlikely.

Quote
No one is martyred for something they know to be false. The 9/11 hijackers were "true believers", that doesn't make their belief true.

The difference is that if it was true that Christ did not die on the Cross or died and was not resurrected etc., then the Apostles who were martyred did so knowing full that what they died for was a sham. On the flip side, fundamentalist Muslims do not know that Muhammed did what he said he did, they just believe. I believe in the Resurrected Christ because I know the Apostles were martyred for Him, and if Christ did not rise from the dead then they would have died for claiming what they knew was a falsehood.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2010, 04:10:16 PM »

You assume those are the only 2 options, when it fact there are plenty of other options. For example maybe they all THOUGHT and truly believed Jesus rose from the dead, in in fact maybe he did not.

Mass hallucination is unlikely.

Quote
No one is martyred for something they know to be false. The 9/11 hijackers were "true believers", that doesn't make their belief true.

The difference is that if it was true that Christ did not die on the Cross or died and was not resurrected etc., then the Apostles who were martyred did so knowing full that what they died for was a sham. On the flip side, fundamentalist Muslims do not know that Muhammed did what he said he did, they just believe. I believe in the Resurrected Christ because I know the Apostles were martyred for Him, and if Christ did not rise from the dead then they would have died for claiming what they knew was a falsehood.
Very well stated. This was what I was trying to get across.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2010, 04:33:39 PM »

Why the Christian God?

Other gods are either too impersonal (like the "divine force") or limited with human flaws (pre-Christian polytheism), be it lust, egotism or greed. After reviewing the different deities, I feel that none but YHWH El Shaddai can love me no matter what and He proved this by dying for me, what other god is willing to do this?

Why are you a Christian as opposed to a Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc.?

I don't know a whole lot about Zoroastrianism though there are some interesting parallels with Christianity and Judaism. But so far I get the impression that Ahura Mazda is not in complete control of the universe whilst every orthodox Christian and Jew agrees that YHWH is. A god that's not in complete control doesn't sound very powerful to me, the theological implications are obvious. I would like to learn more about this one though.

I'm not very well versed on Hinduism either, though I do know it's not a religion per se (not like it used to be) rather it's a collection of religions. There are monotheistic Hindus, polytheistic Hindus, pantheistic Hindus, ect. But from the little I know, here's why I'm not a Hindu:

1. The whole reincarnation thing is utterly pointless to me as we apparently can't remember anything about our past lives, so then how we so supposed to learn from our mistakes in order to get closer with the "divine consciousness"? Reincarnation can in a way encourage immorality because the worst thing that can possibly happen to you is that you will be reincarnated as a lessor being, so Hinduism doesn't install any fear of future judgement. Though to it's credit it at least teaches in the doctrine of Karma that there are consequences to the things we do.

2. I really don't like those creepy looking idols, the thought of having those things in my house or bowing to them literally makes me wanna hurl. They freak me out so much that I won't even go into an Indian restaurant, but I hate Indian food anyway, just gimme a bowl of curry if you really wanna punish me.

3. The pantheistic side of Hinduism (which can also be seen in Buddahism and the New Age Movement) denies the reality of evil. Quite frankly I cannot believe in a faith that refuses to see the world and humanity how it really is, because you cannot fix a problem if you refuse to acknowledge that it's there. Faith is believing what we can't see, not denying what is right in front of us.

As for Islam, now this is religion I'm much more knowledgable about. I am not Muslim because:

1. Muhammad's allah is too arbitrary for my liking, he changes his mind all the time (nasikh), does stuff just because he feels like it and his love is limited, it's not unconditional so I can't trust him with my eternal salvation.

2. Muhammad's allah is not holy, the Quran explicitly states that allah creates both good and evil. Well salt water cannot flow from a fresh stream, or as Yeshua put it "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit". Allah is good because does good (as Muslims claim) so if Allah does evil too, then obviously he is evil too, meaning evil is part of his nature. So Muhammad's allah strikes me a transcendent supernatural schitzo, I cannot accept that such a 2 face inconsistent deity can be the true one.

3. Islam is the only religion that I know of that actually sanctifies deceit. In practically every other religion dishonesty of any kind is considered totally unacceptable, but not in Islam as it's doctrines of Taqiya and Kithman make very clear. But what should we expect as according to Muhammad Allah is the "greatest deceiver". How 1.3 billion people (and counting) on this planet can put their faith in such an untrustworthy god is something I can't wrap my head around. This religion is no doubt Satan's most successful brainchild, his greatest masterpiece.

4. The man Muhammad. He was a lying, thieving, murdering rapist and paedophile, and all this is extensively documented in Muslim sacred literature, and to top it off he gleefully committed these atrocities without a hint of remorse. Seriously even Buddah and Krishna surpass him in the morality stakes.

Now I realize this sounds like a very Christian polemical response to Islam but because Islam is the youngest of the major world religions I already have other literature, world figures and deities to compare with the Quran, Muhammad and his allah. Yes there is all the usual objections of violence and hatred towards kuffar, but once you get deep into the theology you'll find that all this evil in Islam can be justified and that there is a loophole for any sin you can imagine. And that's what makes Islam different not only from Christianity but from everything else. There is just no absolute gage for what is right and wrong, there is no concrete basis for ethics, not even it's deity.

There's also the element of logic. I know that the Bible has some "unbelievable" stories but I must say that it's still the most believable book of the lot.

What would you say to someone who asked a question like this?

I would answer as I did above, name the problems I have with other religions and then I'll drop the bomb on what makes Christianity truly unique:

In every other religion you have to save yourself, well what you're really doing is appealing to the mercy of the god/goddess so that he/she will take pity on you and choose not to destroy you. In Christianity, more correctly in Christ, it is God who took the initiative to save us when we didn't even ask for it, and He did so by doing the unthinkable - dying for us out of sheer 100% pure love. And then coming back to life, thereby reassuring us that even if it seems like He won't come through, He will, that we can trust Him completely because He fulfilled His promises.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 04:36:10 PM by Nazarene » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,451


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2010, 07:57:34 PM »

I personally stay away from describing other religions when being asked "Why Christianity?"  If asked "Why not Islam?" perhaps I'll answer a few points on my issues with Islam.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2010, 09:40:47 AM »

I personally stay away from describing other religions when being asked "Why Christianity?"  If asked "Why not Islam?" perhaps I'll answer a few points on my issues with Islam.
I stay away from saying, "why not other religions?" as well. I know enough about history to know that Christianity is true.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2010, 11:34:45 AM »

I personally stay away from describing other religions when being asked "Why Christianity?"  If asked "Why not Islam?" perhaps I'll answer a few points on my issues with Islam.
I stay away from saying, "why not other religions?" as well. I know enough about history to know that Christianity is true.

But couldn't one also "know enough about history" to seriously doubt that Christianity is true? What about the Inquisition, the persecution of anyone who was different or who spoke out against the corruption seen in the church, the constant pogroms in Russia under so-called "Holy Russia", the massacre of the Old Believers, the troubles in Ireland between Catholic and Protestant, etc. etc. etc. To me, all these horrors and more could cause anyone looking on from the outside to wonder if Christianity contains any ability to change people's lives for the better in any meaningful way.
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,880


« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2010, 11:40:44 AM »

I personally stay away from describing other religions when being asked "Why Christianity?"  If asked "Why not Islam?" perhaps I'll answer a few points on my issues with Islam.
I stay away from saying, "why not other religions?" as well. I know enough about history to know that Christianity is true.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Christian"

Do I believe that at the moment? No. But I have believed something like that in the past, at least when it came to my own beliefs. I'll be honest, I really envy people who have a strong faith and assurance in their religion of choice.
Logged
Super Apostolic Bros.
Is St. Andrew Luigi to St. Peter's Mario?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 227



« Reply #30 on: April 20, 2010, 12:07:02 PM »

I am rather dubious of arguments against Christianity that boil down to "Christian history is violent" or "being a Christian means I can't do whatever I want."

Well, yeah. But the same can be said of any other historical religion and now, of any deeply secular society. Furthermore the reduction of Christianity as a means of control presupposes the absence of any kind of higher truth and boils basically down to utilitarianism. (You see this in a lot of [science] fiction--any religion, especially a Catholic-flavoured religion is actually a mad scheme to enslave people). If this were the case, I wonder how historic Chrisitianity (at least from the point of view of Acts) survived at all, since the people of the world already had a functional scheme of controlling the people in the form of Rome and other empires, and Judea had the Sanhedrin.

As for the violence argument, it is an argument that betrays fairly modern (and dare I say, Christian) presuppositions. If you look at any historical society, violence was a way of life. Only Christianity mitigated that. Before you cite "Crusade!" and "Inquisition!" remember that the former was not an unprovoked attack on Christians against Muslims, and the latter killed (over its entire span) something like 4 people per year. Both events, as unfortunate as they were, are even more unfortuneately not well studied by ordinary people and often manipulated by people with an agenda.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2010, 12:09:38 PM by Super Apostolic Bros. » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #31 on: April 20, 2010, 12:14:26 PM »

I personally stay away from describing other religions when being asked "Why Christianity?"  If asked "Why not Islam?" perhaps I'll answer a few points on my issues with Islam.
I stay away from saying, "why not other religions?" as well. I know enough about history to know that Christianity is true.

But couldn't one also "know enough about history" to seriously doubt that Christianity is true? What about the Inquisition, the persecution of anyone who was different or who spoke out against the corruption seen in the church, the constant pogroms in Russia under so-called "Holy Russia", the massacre of the Old Believers, the troubles in Ireland between Catholic and Protestant, etc. etc. etc. To me, all these horrors and more could cause anyone looking on from the outside to wonder if Christianity contains any ability to change people's lives for the better in any meaningful way.
The fact that there have been bad Christians is no indicator as to whether or not Christ actually rose from the dead and is the God he claimed to be. Nor does the fact that there are good Christians prove that Christianity is true. I have never really understood this silly arguement: "Christ can't be God because of the inquisitions and the crusades." It just strikes me as ridiculous.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #32 on: April 20, 2010, 12:44:58 PM »

I personally stay away from describing other religions when being asked "Why Christianity?"  If asked "Why not Islam?" perhaps I'll answer a few points on my issues with Islam.
I stay away from saying, "why not other religions?" as well. I know enough about history to know that Christianity is true.

But couldn't one also "know enough about history" to seriously doubt that Christianity is true? What about the Inquisition, the persecution of anyone who was different or who spoke out against the corruption seen in the church, the constant pogroms in Russia under so-called "Holy Russia", the massacre of the Old Believers, the troubles in Ireland between Catholic and Protestant, etc. etc. etc. To me, all these horrors and more could cause anyone looking on from the outside to wonder if Christianity contains any ability to change people's lives for the better in any meaningful way.
The fact that there have been bad Christians is no indicator as to whether or not Christ actually rose from the dead and is the God he claimed to be. Nor does the fact that there are good Christians prove that Christianity is true. I have never really understood this silly arguement: "Christ can't be God because of the inquisitions and the crusades." It just strikes me as ridiculous.

And then people completely overlook the saints, ascetics, physicians, martyrs, etc of the Christian faith. What about the first public hospitals that were built under Basil the Great? What about the greater internal stability, social equality, and higher literacy that Christianity brought to the Roman Empire? There are so many ways that Christianity has been beneficial, even from a nonbelieving utilitarian materialist standpoint.
Logged
Super Apostolic Bros.
Is St. Andrew Luigi to St. Peter's Mario?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 227



« Reply #33 on: April 20, 2010, 12:50:18 PM »

I personally stay away from describing other religions when being asked "Why Christianity?"  If asked "Why not Islam?" perhaps I'll answer a few points on my issues with Islam.
I stay away from saying, "why not other religions?" as well. I know enough about history to know that Christianity is true.

But couldn't one also "know enough about history" to seriously doubt that Christianity is true? What about the Inquisition, the persecution of anyone who was different or who spoke out against the corruption seen in the church, the constant pogroms in Russia under so-called "Holy Russia", the massacre of the Old Believers, the troubles in Ireland between Catholic and Protestant, etc. etc. etc. To me, all these horrors and more could cause anyone looking on from the outside to wonder if Christianity contains any ability to change people's lives for the better in any meaningful way.
The fact that there have been bad Christians is no indicator as to whether or not Christ actually rose from the dead and is the God he claimed to be. Nor does the fact that there are good Christians prove that Christianity is true. I have never really understood this silly arguement: "Christ can't be God because of the inquisitions and the crusades." It just strikes me as ridiculous.
Precisely. It is, as you Latins call it, a non sequitur.

I've always been of the opinion that evidential apologetics is the strongest flavour of apologetics, since you really can't argue with what's there. Granted, we're trying to prove that Jesus's body ISN'T there, which is tricky. As far as I can tell, Judea didn't maintain DNA databases and there's a strong possibility that Jesus was haploid. But we can get close to the truth by examining the historicity of the texts regarding this most central Christian event.

Whereas with classical apologetics, people can (and have) spend oceans of ink creating new critiques of the Five Ways.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #34 on: April 20, 2010, 01:49:24 PM »



Whereas with classical apologetics, people can (and have) spend oceans of ink creating new critiques of the Five Ways.
Of the five ways, I think only first two are proper proofs. They are valid, if they are expanded and explained in all of their premises.
The other argument that Thomas uses that I believe is valid but that is not necessarily a proof is the argument from design. Its not completely air tight but is a strong probable argument. The arguement from contingency and the argument from degreess of perfection have serious problems. I think these last two are good theology but not good apologetics.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2010, 01:56:24 PM »



Whereas with classical apologetics, people can (and have) spend oceans of ink creating new critiques of the Five Ways.
Of the five ways, I think only first two are proper proofs. They are valid, if they are expanded and explained in all of their premises.
The other argument that Thomas uses that I believe is valid but that is not necessarily a proof is the argument from design. Its not completely air tight but is a strong probable argument. The arguement from contingency and the argument from degreess of perfection have serious problems. I think these last two are good theology but not good apologetics.

This is not a potshot at Thomas Aquinas, but his Five Ways are based on Aristotelean logic, cosmology, and physics, all of which have serious flaws. It is the same person who said that heavy objects fall faster.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2010, 01:57:36 PM »



Whereas with classical apologetics, people can (and have) spend oceans of ink creating new critiques of the Five Ways.
Of the five ways, I think only first two are proper proofs. They are valid, if they are expanded and explained in all of their premises.
The other argument that Thomas uses that I believe is valid but that is not necessarily a proof is the argument from design. Its not completely air tight but is a strong probable argument. The arguement from contingency and the argument from degreess of perfection have serious problems. I think these last two are good theology but not good apologetics.

This is not a potshot at Thomas Aquinas, but his Five Ways are based on Aristotelean logic, cosmology, and physics, all of which have serious flaws. It is the same person who said that heavy objects fall faster.
This assumes that everything that Aristotle said was wrong.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2010, 02:01:33 PM »

^ I would like to add that Norris Clarke had modified the causality argument with modern/scientific languae rather than Aristotilian language.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,796



« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2010, 03:21:12 PM »

But couldn't one also "know enough about history" to seriously doubt that Christianity is true? What about the Inquisition, the persecution of anyone who was different or who spoke out against the corruption seen in the church, the constant pogroms in Russia under so-called "Holy Russia", the massacre of the Old Believers, the troubles in Ireland between Catholic and Protestant, etc. etc. etc. To me, all these horrors and more could cause anyone looking on from the outside to wonder if Christianity contains any ability to change people's lives for the better in any meaningful way.

I know that other people have answered you, but I will interject and say that you are right that some folks will indeed wonder. What you pointed out happened, just as much as it is also a fact of history that Christianity has made things better for women, children and minorities (Jaroslav Pelikan's Jesus Through the Centuries). One could also point out that the issues were not as cut and dry as "the Inquisition" etc... In any case, people objecting to Christianity on the basis that Christians have misbehaved and sinned is an opportunity to witness to them.

What really matters is that (paraphrasing CS Lewis, Apostle Paul, and the Creed) if God did not send His only begotten Son to the world to be incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and to become man; to suffer, be crucified and die for us; and on the third day to rise again--Christianity would be a bogus faith. No other religion has such apparently ridiculous beliefs. No other religion has a God who is both the recipient of the sacrifice and the sacrifice itself. No other religion has such a loving and caring God, who demands not obedience to Himself but wishes for his creation to love Him back. And, no other religion backs up its claims by such evidence and action. In the current idiom, this God has walked the walk and His disciples have also backed Him up, even unto death.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #39 on: April 26, 2010, 03:48:59 PM »

To be in a religion or faith that you didn't deep down think was true (like a Pascal's wager scenario) would be absurd.
I don't think that's an entirely accurate assessment of the wager scenario.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #40 on: April 26, 2010, 04:00:43 PM »

As for the violence argument, it is an argument that betrays fairly modern (and dare I say, Christian) presuppositions. If you look at any historical society, violence was a way of life. Only Christianity mitigated that. Before you cite "Crusade!" and "Inquisition!" remember that the former was not an unprovoked attack on Christians against Muslims, and the latter killed (over its entire span) something like 4 people per year. Both events, as unfortunate as they were, are even more unfortuneately not well studied by ordinary people and often manipulated by people with an agenda.
Though I agree with you that sometimes these historical examples of Christian (usually heterodox, mind you) malevolence are over-hyped by those seeking to debunk Christianity, ultimately, I see no more need to make excuses for evil, whether perpetrated by Christians or not, than I do to make excuses for the many shameful and wicked deeds I have done, known or unknown, voluntary or involuntary, throughout my whole life. The very fact that all of us, individually and collectively, are every one guilty for every thing and before all (to paraphrase Dostoyevsky) is to me one of the strongest arguments if not for the truth of Christianity then at least for its necessity. If there were no Crusades, and likewise if there were no lies, no malice, no fear, no hatred, no murders, no thefts, no sloth, no suicides, no treacheries, there would be no need for the Godman Jesus Christ.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2010, 07:54:45 AM »

Why Christianity?

Because it's the truth...

I would have included: Why Orthodox Christianity?

Same answer - because it's the truth!

But more importantly, Christ and His Church are the ONLY truth!

And I can prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person in first century Galilee.

The mathematical odds of Him being born to a virgin when He was, where He was, fulfilling all of the O.T. prophecies precisely in the way He did... are mindbogglingly, astronomicallly, virtually impossible.

Beyond that, an undeniable, scientifically verifiable proof that most Christians never seem to think of - is the Star of Bethlehem! The Star was an actual historical celestial event, which - thanks to today's technology and computer astronomy software, as well as Kepler's laws of planetary motion... can be seen today just as it was seen by the magi over 2,000 years ago.

In fact - the Star of Bethlehem was such a spectacle that many planetariums to this day provide a show of that very Star to the unwitting public, who never know that what they are seeing is that great Star that announced the birth of the King of Kings to the world!

There is only ONE Truth and Jesus the Christ IS that Truth!



Oh - and BTW...

Quote from: NorthernPines
"No one is martyred for something they know to be false. The 9/11 hijackers were "true (Muslim) believers", that doesn't make their belief true."

ARAB MUSLIMS DID NOT  PERPETRATE 9/11!!
 
« Last Edit: May 28, 2010, 07:59:46 AM by Saint Iaint » Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2010, 04:31:42 PM »

And I can prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.

Please don't enter the legal system as a barrister and solicitor.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2010, 06:04:04 PM »

Why Christianity?

Because it's the truth...

I would have included: Why Orthodox Christianity?

Same answer - because it's the truth!

But more importantly, Christ and His Church are the ONLY truth!

And I can prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person in first century Galilee.

The mathematical odds of Him being born to a virgin when He was, where He was, fulfilling all of the O.T. prophecies precisely in the way He did... are mindbogglingly, astronomicallly, virtually impossible.

Beyond that, an undeniable, scientifically verifiable proof that most Christians never seem to think of - is the Star of Bethlehem! The Star was an actual historical celestial event, which - thanks to today's technology and computer astronomy software, as well as Kepler's laws of planetary motion... can be seen today just as it was seen by the magi over 2,000 years ago.

In fact - the Star of Bethlehem was such a spectacle that many planetariums to this day provide a show of that very Star to the unwitting public, who never know that what they are seeing is that great Star that announced the birth of the King of Kings to the world!

There is only ONE Truth and Jesus the Christ IS that Truth!



Oh - and BTW...

Quote from: NorthernPines
"No one is martyred for something they know to be false. The 9/11 hijackers were "true (Muslim) believers", that doesn't make their belief true."

ARAB MUSLIMS DID NOT  PERPETRATE 9/11!!
 

You haven't provided any data, scientific or otherwise, to back up any of your statements.

If you are going to claim something to be scientifically provable on this forum, you better have the data/research to back such a statement up.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2010, 07:05:57 PM »

Christianity is really the only religion that explains how redemption as we think of it is possible.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2010, 11:30:06 PM »

And I can prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person in first century Galilee.

The mathematical odds of Him being born to a virgin when He was, where He was, fulfilling all of the O.T. prophecies precisely in the way He did... are mindbogglingly, astronomicallly, virtually impossible.

Would you please demostrate how these "mathematical odds" that you claim are proof are calculated?  What are they based upon? 

Quote
Beyond that, an undeniable, scientifically verifiable proof that most Christians never seem to think of - is the Star of Bethlehem! The Star was an actual historical celestial event, which - thanks to today's technology and computer astronomy software, as well as Kepler's laws of planetary motion... can be seen today just as it was seen by the magi over 2,000 years ago.

In fact - the Star of Bethlehem was such a spectacle that many planetariums to this day provide a show of that very Star to the unwitting public, who never know that what they are seeing is that great Star that announced the birth of the King of Kings to the world!


What astronomical object are you thinking of, please?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2010, 11:32:51 PM »


Oh - and BTW...

ARAB MUSLIMS DID NOT  PERPETRATE 9/11!!
 

Oh?  And what information do you have that shows otherwise, please? 
If one is going to make highlighted bald statements, there ought to be some supporting information for such a claim.

Thank you in advance,

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 31, 2010, 02:03:59 AM »

Quote from: Nebelpfade
"Please don't enter the legal system as a barrister and solicitor."

I have no interest in being a liar... er,  I mean lawyer!



Quote from: HandmaidenofGod
"You haven't provided any data, scientific or otherwise, to back up any of your statements.

If you are going to claim something to be scientifically provable on this forum, you better have the data/research to back such a statement up."

Check it out:

Christ Conquers



Quote from: deusveritasest
"Christianity is really the only religion that explains how redemption as we think of it is possible."

(Orthodox) Christianity is not a religion.



Quote from: Ebor
"Would you please demostrate how these "mathematical odds" that you claim are proof are calculated?  What are they based upon?"

They are base upon the prophecies found in the Old Testament regarding the coming of the Messiah; the Christ.

There are hundreds of fulfilled prophecies relating to Jesus being Christ (at least 456). What are the chances that one man (Who was born and died where and when the prophets said He would be) could fulfill them all?

In the late sixties, a man named Peter Stoner who was Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Christ. The estimates were worked out by himself and twelve different classes under his supervision representing some 600 university students.

The students carefully weighed all the factors, discussed each prophecy at length, and examined the various circumstances which might indicate that men had conspired together to fulfill a particular prophecy. They made their estimates conservative enough so that there was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students.

However Professor Stoner then took their estimates, and made them even more conservative. He also encouraged other skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if his conclusions were more than fair. Finally, he submitted his figures for review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented.

After examining only eight different prophecies, they conservatively estimated that the chance of one man fulfilling all eight prophecies was one in 1017 (100,000,000,000,000,000).

To illustrate how large the number 1017 IS (a figure with 17 zeros), Stoner gave this illustration :

If you mark one of ten tickets, and place all the tickets in a hat, and thoroughly stir them, and then ask a blindfolded man to draw one, his chance of getting the right ticket is one in ten. Suppose that we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They'll cover all of the whole state two feet deep.

Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up just one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one?

Just the same chance that the prophets would've had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man.

But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation, Stoner used 48 prophecies (even though he could have used 456), and arrived at the still extremely conservative estimate that the probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is the incredible number 10157.

How large is the number one in 10157? 10157 contains 157 zeros! Stoner gives an illustration of this number using electrons. Electrons are very small objects. They're smaller than atoms. It would take more than 2.5 TIMES 1,000,000,000,000,000 of them, laid side by side, to make one inch. Even if we counted 250 of these electrons each minute, and counted day and night, it would still take 19 million years just to count a line of electrons one-inch long. 

With this introduction, let's go back to our chance of one in 10157. Let's suppose that we're taking this number of electrons, marking one, and thoroughly stirring it into the whole mass, then blindfolding a man and letting him try to find the right one. What chance has he of finding the right one?

This is the result from considering a mere 48 prophecies. Obviously, the probability that 456 prophecies would be fulfilled in one man by chance is vastly smaller. Once one goes past one chance in 1050, the probabilities are so small that it is all but impossible to think that they will ever occur.

As Stoner concludes in his book (Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969),"Any man who rejects Christ as the Son of God is rejecting a fact, proved perhaps more absolutely than any other fact in the world." (Stoner, op. cit., 112)

God so thoroughly vindicated Jesus Christ that even mathematicians and statisticians, who were without faith, had to acknowledge that it is scientifically impossible to deny that Jesus is the Christ.

Quote
"What astronomical object are you thinking of, please?"

The Star of Bethlehem!
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 31, 2010, 03:06:20 AM »

Dear Ebor,

I said, "ARAB MUSLIMS DID NOT PERPETRATE 9/11!!"

Then you said:

Quote
"Oh?  And what information do you have that shows otherwise, please? 
If one is going to make highlighted bald statements, there ought to be some supporting information for such a claim.

Thank you in advance,"

No problem... Thanks for asking!




Click on these:

'Jews' Did 9/11

Missing Links: The Movie

How 9/11 Was Done

The Ugly Truth Podcast: Mar 15

The Ugly Truth Podcast: Mar 24
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,769


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #49 on: May 31, 2010, 03:15:06 AM »

It seems we have a disciple of Brother Nathaniel here. Or, perhaps, Br Nathaniel himself. ...  Tongue Roll Eyes
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,414



« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2010, 08:51:47 AM »

I've systematically refuted this lying idiocy before, and if the moderators are willing, I'll do it again. But you know, Saint Iaint, it's only going to end in you being banned.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2010, 01:31:37 PM »

I have to say, that "IX XI" graphic is pretty whack.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 31, 2010, 02:05:47 PM »

Quote from: LBK
"It seems we have a disciple of Brother Nathanael here. Or, perhaps, Br Nathanael himself."

A "disciple"? That's a little off... but I have read everything on his website, and I have commented there also. I am not Br. Nathanael. My name is Joshua.

Did you even click on the links I provided - or are you too wise to even look?

Quote from: Keble
"I've systematically refuted this lying idiocy before, and if the moderators are willing, I'll do it again. But you know, Saint Iaint, it's only going to end in you being banned."

"Lying idiocy"?

Not only are you insulting me... but you are also bearing false witness against me. I am NOT a liar!

And a professed Protestant is going to get me banned from Orthodox Christianity.net? Good luck w/ that. It is already proven (by the fact that you are a Protestant) that the truth is not readily apparent to you!

Did you know that Martin Luther in the end came to the conclusion that the Greek Orthodox Church was the true New Testament Church he was searching for? Sadly he mistakenly thought that the Greek Church was defunct.

If he had found the Church - you'd probably be Orthodox right now!

Anyhow, perhaps you could just point me to the thread where you've "systematically refuted" my assertions so I can see where you're coming from?

Quote from: Jetavan
"I have to say, that 'IX XI' graphic is pretty whack."

I thought it was pretty clever. More importantly - it's true. And the gangsta-slang you're using really should read 'wack', you know. (Short for 'wacky'.)
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 02:09:28 PM by Saint Iaint » Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2010, 03:31:31 PM »


Quote from: Jetavan
"I have to say, that 'IX XI' graphic is pretty whack."

I thought it was pretty clever. More importantly - it's true. And the gangsta-slang you're using really should read 'wack', you know. (Short for 'wacky'.)
"Whack" is an acceptable alternative spelling, dating back to 1951.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 03:33:05 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #54 on: May 31, 2010, 05:40:17 PM »


Quote from: Ebor
"Would you please demostrate how these "mathematical odds" that you claim are proof are calculated?  What are they based upon?"

They are base upon the prophecies found in the Old Testament regarding the coming of the Messiah; the Christ.

There are hundreds of fulfilled prophecies relating to Jesus being Christ (at least 456). What are the chances that one man (Who was born and died where and when the prophets said He would be) could fulfill them all?

In the late sixties, a man named Peter Stoner who was Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Christ. The estimates were worked out by himself and twelve different classes under his supervision representing some 600 university students.

Thank you for the name.  I shall have to do some research as to the qualifications and findings.

I am familiar with powers of 10 and such mathematics. One question is how the probability of various "fulfillment of prophecy" were arrived at.

Quote
Quote
"What astronomical object are you thinking of, please?"

The Star of Bethlehem!

I know that you were making a claim about the Star of Bethlehem. Perhaps I was not clear in my question.  Are you saying that a particular celestial object *is visible today* and is the Star?  or are you saying that the planetarium shows show the star?  What do you say the Star was? I'm asking as some theorize that it was a conjunction of planets or a comet.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #55 on: May 31, 2010, 05:44:17 PM »

I thought it was pretty clever. More importantly - it's true.

It's "true" that if six lines are moved about and two are bent in half that they can form a Magen David.  The same six lines could be moved in other ways to make other shapes or figures such as XXX or a hexagon. Other arrangements of lines can do the same sort of thing.  It's not particularly clever nor any kind of "proof" of a conspiracy.

 Undecided

Ebor
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 05:51:23 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,414



« Reply #56 on: May 31, 2010, 05:48:28 PM »

Saint Iaint, I can guarantee that if the moderators will allow anyone to step up to refuting your 9/11 denial, they will certainly endorse me doing it, protestant or no protestant. Right now it's more important to get dinner ready, so your chastisement will have to wait until a later hour.
Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 31, 2010, 09:50:20 PM »

Quote from: Ebor
"I know that you were making a claim about the Star of Bethlehem. Perhaps I was not clear in my question.  Are you saying that a particular celestial object *is visible today* and is the Star?  or are you saying that the planetarium shows show the star?  What do you say the Star was? I'm asking as some theorize that it was a conjunction of planets or a comet."

No I'm not saying it's visible in the skies today... I'm saying planetariums have shows of the particular conjunction that the Magi and all Judea witnessed in 2 BC.

Check it out: Evidence For The Historical Jesus Of Nazareth Pt II - The Star Of Bethlehem

Quote from: Keble
"Saint Iaint, I can guarantee that if the moderators will allow anyone to step up to refuting your 9/11 denial, they will certainly endorse me doing it, protestant or no protestant. Right now it's more important to get dinner ready, so your chastisement will have to wait until a later hour."

Fill your boots, buddy!

Why not just drop a link to the relevant thread so I know where you're coming from?

RE: "9/11 denial"... I'm not denying that 9/11 took place - Thousands of innocent Americans were murdered that day and more have died since from the asbestos dust.

I'm just saying that Arab Muslims had naught to do with it.
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2010, 09:59:05 PM »

"Lying idiocy"?

Not only are you insulting me... but you are also bearing false witness against me. I am NOT a liar!

Well, you might be.  We all know that the Jews did not stage the 9/11 tragedy.  It was the Khazars.  You told us so.  And they are of the Arabic race if I remember?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 10:02:23 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 31, 2010, 11:53:56 PM »

Quote from: Irish Hermit
"Well, you might be.  We all know that the Jews did not stage the 9/11 tragedy.  It was the Khazars.  You told us so.  And they are of the Arabic race if I remember?"

They call themselves 'Jews'... the majority of people believe they're 'Jews'... So sometimes I'll call them 'Jews' to avoid confusion or an argument.

And no - Khazars were/are not Arabic... but Slavo-Turkic, with no genetic connection to the Biblical Hebrews. The kingdom of Khazaria under king Bhulan converted to 'Judaism' (actually Pharisaism) en masse in the 9th century.

The Talmud is their 'bible' which calls for the death of Christians, the burning of the New Testament and other Christian literature, and suggests that if we are allowed to live - that we be subject to usury and slavery in subjection to them.

And please don't make light of 9/11... It is a very serious topic for me.

May God have mercy on the souls of those who were murdered in cold blood that day... and those who have died since.
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,414



« Reply #60 on: June 01, 2010, 07:12:48 AM »

One can follow the references from the Wikipedia article on the Khazars and see that considerable genetic research has been done. On the whole Jewish men and other middle eastern men share a common genetic origin, but Ashkenazi men show some small genetic input from Eastern Europe that could be attributed, perhaps, to the Khazars. Sephardic men show no such input. The Cohanim, interestingly, do not show this pattern.

This I do not find terribly surprising. But I will also not be surprised if actual scientific evidence doesn't bend you from repeating the unfounded claims of others.

Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #61 on: June 01, 2010, 07:38:20 AM »

....
I know that you were making a claim about the Star of Bethlehem. Perhaps I was not clear in my question.  Are you saying that a particular celestial object *is visible today* and is the Star?  or are you saying that the planetarium shows show the star?  What do you say the Star was? I'm asking as some theorize that it was a conjunction of planets or a comet.

Ebor
I think the conjunction hypothesis is most likely. That is, the planet Jupiter (which has connections with priesthood and sacred textual knowledge) did a triple conjunction with the star Regulus (which has connections with royalty, being one of the four primary stars of ancient Persia) in the last few years B.C.. Regulus is in the constellation Leo, the Lion (which is connected to Judah). And Jupiter also conjuncted Venus at some point during that triple conjunction process, too. (Venus is often associated with love, but it has wider meanings connected to war, as well.) So, the triple conjunction of Jupiter with Regulus, in Leo, along with Venus, probably had significant meaning to those who were knowledgeable about such subjects, as the astrologers/astronomers of Mesopotamia and Persia may have been.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,414



« Reply #62 on: June 01, 2010, 09:08:56 PM »

The reliance on the remote control theory is relatively new. The reason for that is perhaps that some of the other theories have gotten too untenable to be pushed any more except to the most ignorant and/or stupid.

Let's start with the claims made that the Pentagon wasn't hit by an airline, but by something else (typical claim is with a military weapon such as a cruise missile). OK, first of all, unlike the PA crash, there were dozens upon dozens of witnesses. The airplane came in, cut a large circle south of the pentagon, and hit the pentagon on the western side, facing Arlington Cemetery. There's no hotel anywhere near there, so there was no security tape to confiscate. The final approach took the plane directly over one of the major interchanges in the area; besides all the people in their cars, witnesses included at least one person standing the adjacent parking lot and the crew of a C-130H that was asked to follow the plane to see what it was doing. Everyone agrees that they saw an airliner; the one report to the contrary was cherry-picked from a longer account in which the person said it hit the pentagon like a cruise missile and in which he had already stated that he saw an airliner.

The various claims about the impossibility of using cell phones are also bogus. First of all, the planes flew pretty low, a few thousand feet up. That's well within the range in which the phones will work quite well. But more to the point, most of the calls were not made with cell phones; they used the air phones installed in the planes, which were designed to work in any sort of flight configuration.
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,270



« Reply #63 on: June 01, 2010, 09:40:20 PM »

The Talmud is their 'bible' which calls for the death of Christians, the burning of the New Testament and other Christian literature, and suggests that if we are allowed to live - that we be subject to usury and slavery in subjection to them.

What does this matter? Should it affect your spiritual life if such things are in the Talmud? Remove the plank from your own eye before removing the speck in your brother's.

I also think that you saying that the Jews did the 9/11 attacks is preposterous since there is no proof. We know who did it and they took responsibility for it and that was Osama bin Laden (who is an Arab Muslim from Saudi Arabia). What are you going to say next? That Jews made up the Holocaust? Killed JFK? Black helicopters? Seriously, what is your point in doing this? To spread hatred because that is the only thing that is spread with such things. Christ said we should love our neighbor, not hate them and judge them.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 09:44:35 PM by Andrew21091 » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,414



« Reply #64 on: June 01, 2010, 09:42:09 PM »

The remote control theory has three big flaws. First, in spite of what people claimed, the planes in question are not equipped as-is for this sort of thing. They are old-fashioned hydraulic-assisted cable-controlled planes, not fly-by-wire; the autopilot, out of the factory, can fly the plane but isn't capable of the kind of maneuvering which happened in the course of these flights, and a software upgrade wasn't going to fix that.

Second, if one supposes that extra equipment was installed or modifications made, the changes would be detected almost immediately by the swarms of maintenance people who crawl all over the plane after each flight. That also supposes that there was enough time to take the planes out of service to make the modifications in the first place.

Third, the fact is that remote control doesn't work very well. Accident rates for Predator drones, for instance, are estimated to have an accident rate a hundred times that of manned flight; of 135 drones, 85 had either been destroyed or serious damaged in accidents. Part of the problem is that there is a significant delay in response, on the order of a second or two. A perhaps more relevant example was found in the 1984 Controlled Impact Demonstration in which a remotely controlled 720 was guided into a crash in the desert; the pilot was unable to land the plane flat, and it skidded sideways into the structure it was supposed to hit head on.

For additional info, here we have an actual airplane technician talking in detail about the difficulties in the remote control theory.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 09:45:04 PM by Keble » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,414



« Reply #65 on: June 07, 2010, 01:17:16 PM »

Since this all seems to be being sucked into the black hole of the politics sooper seekrit forum Wink I would only further report (based on an interview with one Orthodox Jew, for whatever that's worth) that the Jews really don't care about the whole "Ashkenazis are really just Khazars" theory. It's pretty plain that European Jews show significant intermarriage, but nobody cares.
Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #66 on: June 07, 2010, 06:05:25 PM »

Seems someone thinks that talking about 'Jews' is "political"...

But 'Jew' is a religion!

The person our Protestant friend calls an "Orthodox Jew" is actually a Pharisee. Pharisees are anti-Christ. Just because he doesn't voice the Talmudic doctrines he learns... doesn't mean that they're not in his head. Of course he has to keep them a secret.

Anyhow, as long as I'm being censored - this is a one-sided debate that I'm bound to lose.
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #67 on: June 07, 2010, 06:43:08 PM »

But 'Jew' is a religion!

Many people who call themselves Jews are actually atheists or agnostics. Perhaps the majority of Jewish emigrants from the former USSR who left for Israel in the 1970 (most of them eneded up in the USA) were or are atheists or agnostics. They don't care about Judaism at all. But they would be extremely surprised if someone told them that they aren't Jews.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 06:43:30 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #68 on: June 07, 2010, 06:54:30 PM »

I am wondering if there is some confusion or misunderstanding of terms.  If "Jew" is a follower of the religion of Judaism then was does an ethnic/genetic strain have to do with it?  Is Judaism the religion of Abraham, Moses, the prophets and the apostles as well as that of Our Lord in that he read from the Torah as is recorded in the Gospels?  

How does the ethnic/genetic group of some turkic-slavs called the "Khazars" define a religion? Or is the hereditary component to be considered to somehow "trump" a person's belief in the Most High?  What of people's from that area of the globe who became Christian?  What does their genetics or ethnicity matter then?  

What does the term "Pharisee" mean besides being a label applied to other human beings to somehow denigrate them, to make them "other" and "enemies"?  What is the difference between a "Jew" as a religious believer and a "pharisee" likewise?

How are you being "censored", S.I.?  You are free to ask to be allowed into the Political forum.  And the subject of 9-11 can be addressed without recourse to politics but with history and engineering and facts. 

Ebor

« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 06:58:33 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #69 on: June 07, 2010, 06:57:26 PM »

But 'Jew' is a religion!

Many people who call themselves Jews are actually atheists or agnostics. Perhaps the majority of Jewish emigrants from the former USSR who left for Israel in the 1970 (most of them eneded up in the USA) were or are atheists or agnostics. They don't care about Judaism at all. But they would be extremely surprised if someone told them that they aren't Jews.

It has seemed to me, Heorhij, that there have been people who want the word to mean a "race"/ethnicity and a religion so that it can be used either way in accusations of other people as it suits the situation.   Undecided Sad 
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,414



« Reply #70 on: June 07, 2010, 07:42:10 PM »

Seems someone thinks that talking about 'Jews' is "political"...

But 'Jew' is a religion!

The person our Protestant friend calls an "Orthodox Jew" is actually a Pharisee. Pharisees are anti-Christ. Just because he doesn't voice the Talmudic doctrines he learns... doesn't mean that they're not in his head. Of course he has to keep them a secret.

They are hardly secret; one can read the Talmud readily enough, though (once again) I suspect that you haven't actually read any of the real thing, seeing as how all the evidence thus far is that you haven't read any original materials. Reading the Talmud alone, however, isn't sufficient for an understanding of Judaism. You have to understand how the rabbis read it, which is not something you're going to learn at Stormfront or other racial supremacist sites. Likewise, it is no great secret that Orthodox Judaism is historically descended from the Pharisaic party.

You more or less belie your purpose with all the irrelevant (and from what I can see untrue) going on about Khazars. What's the point about going on about ancestry if it's the doctrines of the Pharisees that are the problem?

Oh, and while I'm at it: your savior was buried by a couple of Pharisees. Think about it.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,844


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #71 on: June 07, 2010, 08:33:08 PM »

Seems someone thinks that talking about 'Jews' is "political"...

But 'Jew' is a religion!

The person our Protestant friend calls an "Orthodox Jew" is actually a Pharisee. Pharisees are anti-Christ. Just because he doesn't voice the Talmudic doctrines he learns... doesn't mean that they're not in his head. Of course he has to keep them a secret.

Anyhow, as long as I'm being censored - this is a one-sided debate that I'm bound to lose.

Actually, Jesus was clearly within the Tradition of the Pharisees. His emphasis on loving your neighbor as the way to love God, teachings about the poor ..on and on, were all taught before his time within the line of Pharisitical interpretation.

One the biggest contributions they made was to unteather Judaism from strict temple worship and introduced the idea that you take your religion with you. Once the temple was destroyed and Jews were forceably dispersed, the Pharisees were best able to survive of all the various Jewish sects and tendencies because of this sort of mobility. That is why they were the main constents with fledgling Christian groups for dominance and is why they are singled out for disdain in Scripture. But make no mistake, Jesus taught what was basically the Parasitical approach to Judaism.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 08:38:02 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,844


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #72 on: June 07, 2010, 08:42:03 PM »

But 'Jew' is a religion!

Many people who call themselves Jews are actually atheists or agnostics. Perhaps the majority of Jewish emigrants from the former USSR who left for Israel in the 1970 (most of them eneded up in the USA) were or are atheists or agnostics. They don't care about Judaism at all. But they would be extremely surprised if someone told them that they aren't Jews.

When the Nazis came and hauled away Jew's, do you think that if any of them had mentioned that they were "Agnostic", it would have made a difference?
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Bob L.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 25


« Reply #73 on: October 29, 2010, 10:18:01 AM »

I've struggled with that question myself.  I think of it like a feedback between believing and doing.  Your brain needs to see evidence to believe, so you do a little thing and see that it works as God promised.  Then you believe a little more and do a little more.  I think that is what the book of James means to me.
Logged
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #74 on: October 29, 2010, 11:54:14 AM »

I know enough about history to know that Christianity is true.

While that may be part of your reason for believing Christianity's truth, it may not be the best argument.  Unfortunately, modern historical scholarship has contributed far more to doubts concerning Christianity than to proving it.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #75 on: October 29, 2010, 12:29:23 PM »


Quote from: Jetavan
"I have to say, that 'IX XI' graphic is pretty whack."

I thought it was pretty clever. More importantly - it's true. And the gangsta-slang you're using really should read 'wack', you know. (Short for 'wacky'.)
"Whack" is an acceptable alternative spelling, dating back to 1951.

And interesting, since Hebrew (and hence Jews) don't use Roman numerals. Maybe the Vatican was in on it as well. Roll Eyes
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #76 on: October 29, 2010, 02:14:04 PM »

These guys don't look Jewish to me...

Logged
Tags: apologetics Protestant Censored Thread 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.259 seconds with 105 queries.