Convince Me!

[Aimiel]

Take the Chair challenge! Convince me that Christianity is true.

There are some rules:

1. Please define, BRIEFLY, what you mean by Christianity before you start. There are differing views about this, so I would like to know what exactly you are trying to convince me of.

I believe that Christianity is best described as a dynamic relationship with the Living God, through The Living Savior, by The Holy Ghost.

2. Give some evidence or reasoning for your statements.

Without Christ, you have no hope of even communicating with The Lord, Who will not tolerate sin.

3. Avoid circular reasoning. If you want to prove something from the Bible, you will have to convince me that the Bible is true first.

If you don't believe The Bible, you're likely to swallow anything, but no one can ever convince you That God's Word is Truth, you have to believe Him for yourself.

4. Please be brief. I get lost in long-winded lengthy posts.

Me too.

5. Personal experience ( I feel God) won't work with me, so don't bother.

K.

6. Don't assume that I agree with you on anything before I have actually said so. Some ideas that you think are held by everybody but be completely foreign to me.

Honestly - I view this as an intellectual exercise. I don't expect to be changed in my thinking. But you never know...

Precisely why most of the unbelievers come to TOL, they expect God to show up and 'poof' them into being believers, or if (as they have been led to believe) He doesn't exist, for nothing at all to happen. Those with an open mind, who believe that He exists, who seek and search for Him with all of their heart find Him, every single time. He said so Himself, and He doesn't lie.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So it's possible that AS and I could provide evidence that Jesus was a myth that could possibly convince you that we are correct?

Of course.

Christianity is falsifiable.

And if you feel compelled that the Jesus Myth is coherent that's your prerogative. Allsmiles on the other hand believes that the Jesus Myth is fact and NO EVIDENCE whatsoever could prove otherwise. In other words... to allsmiles the Jesus Myth is NOT falsifiable. There is no reason to discuss (in a serious manner) anyone who holds a position like that.

 

[Yorzhik]

I have never tried to conviince anybody here to become Jewish, and I ain't gonna start now. Many have tried to convince me of the truth of Christianity, thoiugh, which is why I opened this thread.

This should be a problem for you. Either you don't think that Judism is correct and it won't help anyone. Or you think Judism is correct and it will help your fellow man... but you don't care about your fellow man.

Which is it?

 

[Yorzhik]

some friendly advice from a former christian - some here may try to convince you that you should become a christians because christianity (in their opinion) makes more sense any other religious option currently on the market.

Including athiesm/agnosticism. It is better to state it: Christianity makes more sense than any other worldview.

it goes without saying that that in and of itself doesn't mean that christianity is true - christianity may just be the most credible selection in an un-credible lot.

That would be true if you include your selection as well.

*Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains
by John W. Loftus

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Rejected-...9983034?ie=UTF8

http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/view-...145338-31415aaa

Subtitle: How the Settled View Kills

 

[Real Sorceror]

Including athiesm/agnosticism. It is better to state it: Christianity makes more sense than any other worldview.

ps. Don't mind me. Carry on.

 

[TheDude]

'You people' must mean Christians trying to help, trying to, "Convince me that Christianity is true" . Looks like the 'Jesus doesn't exist' crowd are the ones derailing the thread.

They're doing their part too, no lie. But even still, no one has really addressed the OP.

Much like your collective ability to neg rep those same Christians trying to contribute - those trying to explain from a Christian perspective what is 'convincing'.

Right man, you call it what you want to call it, I'll call it like I see it. I see you people (Christians) talking down to chair, trying to get him to have a personal relationship with a dead Jew.

The only 'underhanded' thing I see here is the anti-Christian sentiment in a thread where it does not belong, and wasn't asked for in the first place.

Well, all I do is social commentary these days. I see a bunch of sappy Christians trying to convert someone so they can ignore his questions and derail the point. Thats what I see. And as long as there is rep, I'll be handing out neg rep when its called for.

Cope.

 

[allsmiles]

So it's possible that AS and I could provide evidence that Jesus was a myth that could possibly convince you that we are correct?

The nuance of my statement/question to Knight was that his attitude is no different, not what he said. Like I said, either his beady eyes just didn't see it or he saw it and he's just trying to slime his way out of providing an honest response.

In my opinion, Knight's simply dishonest. He understood what I said and he's lying about it otherwise he wouldn't be so emphatic in his protests. Of course you'll never see him say that he would never be convinced. He doesn't have to say it, he wears it on his chest like a badge of honor. He's a liar and a hypocrite.

 

[chair]

This should be a problem for you. Either you don't think that Judism is correct and it won't help anyone. Or you think Judism is correct and it will help your fellow man... but you don't care about your fellow man.

Which is it?

Judaism does not claim to be a universal religion. Nor do we believe that only Jews get to Heaven or some such thing. This is very hard for people from a Christian background to comprehend.

 

[chair]

chair:

What is your interpretation of Daniel 9:25?

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."

Christians view it as follows: Gabriel splits the first sixty-nine weeks into seven weeks (forty-nine years) and sixty-two weeks (434 years). During the forty-nine years from 457 to 408 BC, Jerusalem was being rebuilt. After this time Jerusalem was a fully functioning trade center and fortress. This fulfills the prophecy exactly.

Adding the 434 years to 408 BC brings us to AD 27 (adding one year for passing over the non-existent year 0). During this year, John baptized Jesus and His ministry began.

How do Jews view this verse?

Frankly, I offhand have no idea how Jews interpret this. I could look it up in the traditional commentaries, but I probably won't bother.

Why?
First of all, there will likely be several different explanations of this obscure passage. There isn't a single "correct" interpretation for many verses, especially ones that ar hard to understand. It is OK to even admit that the verse is obscure and not well understood.

Secondly, your interpretation is rather wild. You start off with turning weeks into sets of years, make unsupported assumptions about the dates on which certain events happened, and end up "proving" something about Jesus. It is rather far-fetched, frankly. Only somebody who was already convinced that Jesus was the Messiah would even start to interpret those verses like that.

 

[Yorzhik]

Judaism does not claim to be a universal religion. Nor do we believe that only Jews get to Heaven or some such thing. This is very hard for people from a Christian background to comprehend.

The more I talk with Jews online, the more ya'll sound like United Methodists. Perhaps that's too much of an inside joke.

Seriously though, my Jewish friend (converted) is a little more strict. By his view, there isn't really heaven in the same way that Christians understand it. Rather, there is a continuing of life in more of a corporeal sense. I just wanted to mention that because for the sake of this discussion, if I refer to heaven, you can just understand it to mean "whatever the afterlife is". And only Jews will be allowed in certain areas in the afterlife, so although there will be many people that go to heaven that are not Jews, it won't be a common experience. Perhaps your view is different. Beyond that, those that are directly against God are put out. Exactly what that means has different interpretations according to my friend although there is no hell in the Christian popular view is ruled out (I guess if the Devil and demons aren't real, then hell loses a lot of support).

So far none of this is hard for me to comprehend. Where I have a problems is, just like my friend, he says he isn't interested in converting/evangelizing people to the Jewish religion/way of life. However, he is never remiss to mention, let us say after dinner, that Satan isn't real. And that might spark a discussion that will last the whole evening. I'll point out to him that if he wasn't interested in my "salvation" then he wouldn't insist on being right, and contending that I'm wrong on any particular subject. It's the same thing as what Christians do; we are both caring about our fellow man and would not want them to live lives that would cause them or those around them pain.

 

[Yorzhik]

Frankly, I offhand have no idea how Jews interpret this. I could look it up in the traditional commentaries, but I probably won't bother.

Why?
First of all, there will likely be several different explanations of this obscure passage. There isn't a single "correct" interpretation for many verses, especially ones that ar hard to understand. It is OK to even admit that the verse is obscure and not well understood.

Secondly, your interpretation is rather wild. You start off with turning weeks into sets of years, make unsupported assumptions about the dates on which certain events happened, and end up "proving" something about Jesus. It is rather far-fetched, frankly. Only somebody who was already convinced that Jesus was the Messiah would even start to interpret those verses like that.

I've asked my friend about this, and his answer was similar. But he also said he would look into it. He did look it up in a book at the time. Now the idea of interpreding the weekdays as 24 hour days didn't add up (as the book also said), but he also wasn't comfortable with the "time period" interpretation that the book did endorse. I won't see him for a few weeks, but I might call him just because I'm curious.

 

[daddyugi]

Quote: allsmiles

"Also, miracles in the gospels don't really prove much. It has been established that Matthew and Luke relied heavily and primarily on Mark as the source of their gospels and eyewitnesses would not have had to do that, but Mark wasn't an eyewitness either..."

Where exactly do you get your information about Luke? Try reading Luke in comparison
with Mark. Luke is much more detailed than Mark and names cities and people/positions
that for years, scholars said didn't exist and yet archaeologist later found to be true. Here
is a place to go for a short essay on Luke.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/saint-luke.htm

Don't worry, this is about historical accuracy not "religion".

 

[daddyugi]

Quote:chair

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Take the Chair challenge! Convince me that Christianity is true. Many of you have been trying to do this in various threads, so here is a chance to go at it in a straightforward way, instead of hijacking other threads.

There are some rules:

1. Please define, BRIEFLY, what you mean by Christianity before you start. There are differing views about this, so I would like to know what exactly you are trying to convince me of.
2. Give some evidence or reasoning for your statements.
3. Avoid circular reasoning. If you want to prove something from the Bible, you will have to convince me that the Bible is true first.
4. Please be brief. I get lost in long-winded lengthy posts.
5. Personal experience ( I feel God) won't work with me, so don't bother.
6. Don't assume that I agree with you on anything before I have actually said so. Some ideas that you think are held by everybody but be completely foreign to me."

Honestly - I view this as an intellectual exercise. I don't expect to be changed in my thinking. But you never know...


I would love to take your challenge, but you've made that impossible. #4 cancels out
#2. To try to briefly give evidence or reasoning for a statement for or against Christianity
is impossible unless you want to say "Because I said so" which is neither evidence or
reasoning. If you truly want anyone to answer your challenge, then remove #4, otherwise
please close this thread.

God bless you.

 

[Aimiel]

:rotfl:

He's right. :up:

 

[chair]

Quote:chair

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Take the Chair challenge! Convince me that Christianity is true. Many of you have been trying to do this in various threads, so here is a chance to go at it in a straightforward way, instead of hijacking other threads.

There are some rules:

1. Please define, BRIEFLY, what you mean by Christianity before you start. There are differing views about this, so I would like to know what exactly you are trying to convince me of.
2. Give some evidence or reasoning for your statements.
3. Avoid circular reasoning. If you want to prove something from the Bible, you will have to convince me that the Bible is true first.
4. Please be brief. I get lost in long-winded lengthy posts.
5. Personal experience ( I feel God) won't work with me, so don't bother.
6. Don't assume that I agree with you on anything before I have actually said so. Some ideas that you think are held by everybody but be completely foreign to me."

Honestly - I view this as an intellectual exercise. I don't expect to be changed in my thinking. But you never know...


I would love to take your challenge, but you've made that impossible. #4 cancels out
#2. To try to briefly give evidence or reasoning for a statement for or against Christianity
is impossible unless you want to say "Because I said so" which is neither evidence or
reasoning. If you truly want anyone to answer your challenge, then remove #4, otherwise
please close this thread.

God bless you.

Go ahead. eliminate 4, but please be coherent.

Chair

 

[Mustard Seed]

5. Personal experience ( I feel God) won't work with me, so don't bother.

If what I proposed had YOU experiencing something personally would you discount that? Or is the "personal experience" thing universal in your rejection criteria?

 

[chair]

If what I proposed had YOU experiencing something personally would you discount that? Or is the "personal experience" thing universal in your rejection criteria?

It is possible that a personal experience would convince me. It is more likely, knowing myself, that I would think that I was hallucinating. I haven't had an experience like that, so I don't know. I do know that there are people in many religions, including mine, who have such experiences, and they all claim to know the "truth", which makes one wonder about this whole approach.

You will have to convince me to do what you propose before I actually do it, and that may not be easy. Why should I try something that may strike me as hare-brained or against my convictions?

But, having said all that, I am curious. What do you propose?

 

[Mustard Seed]

It is possible that a personal experience would convince me. It is more likely, knowing myself, that I would think that I was hallucinating. I haven't had an experience like that, so I don't know. I do know that there are people in many religions, including mine, who have such experiences, and they all claim to know the "truth", which makes one wonder about this whole approach.

You will have to convince me to do what you propose before I actually do it, and that may not be easy. Why should I try something that may strike me as hare-brained or against my convictions?

But, having said all that, I am curious. What do you propose?

Study the Book of Mormon. Ponder about what it says about God and about God's past doings and mercies toward man. Then go to God and ask him if the Book of Mormon is his revealed word. But do it with the faith that you can and will receive an answer from God and that such an answer will be what dictates your life decisions. Do essentially what Abraham did, take a request claiming to hail from God and test it personally.

Because I frankly can't, and don't expect, to personally convince you against any of your present beliefs or for mine in any meaning full and lasting way, if in anyway at all. We are dealing inherently with an item beyond the limits of human capacity to conceptualize and asertain conclusively or with any real certainty. We can sit back and forth for hours and argue over what and why such is or isn't a right or a wrong reading, or does or doesn't constitute God's will. But I say put it between you and God. God was mercifull and gave answers in the past, why not today? And if someone gives you a reason for "why not" then why trust them or their reading or their claim? It's rather nonsensical to think God would have us base our faith and convictions on merely a human or a human construct when he clearly is omnipotent and, according to many ancient discriptors, certainly used his incomprehensible capacities to give answer to various parts of man kind.

If you can come to a realization of the futility of gaining any proof or disproof between mere discourse on subjects so grand and beyond such then some of these references to personal experiences perhapse will not seem so hair brained as to utterly justify denying them the chance to demonstrate themselves on a personal level--

Here's the challenge I've taken, and personally believe any can take and receive answer from God--

It's contained in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon--

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10

Don't take my word for it. I can't force or prove anything really. I hold the issue is between you and God at the foundational level. You make the choices you perceive to be the right ones and I'll leave the reality of such efforts to be a judgement between you and God.

 

[chair]

Study the Book of Mormon. Ponder about what it says about God and about God's past doings and mercies toward man. Then go to God and ask him if the Book of Mormon is his revealed word. But do it with the faith that you can and will receive an answer from God and that such an answer will be what dictates your life decisions. Do essentially what Abraham did, take a request claiming to hail from God and test it personally.

Because I frankly can't, and don't expect, to personally convince you against any of your present beliefs or for mine in any meaning full and lasting way, if in anyway at all. We are dealing inherently with an item beyond the limits of human capacity to conceptualize and asertain conclusively or with any real certainty. We can sit back and forth for hours and argue over what and why such is or isn't a right or a wrong reading, or does or doesn't constitute God's will. But I say put it between you and God. God was mercifull and gave answers in the past, why not today? And if someone gives you a reason for "why not" then why trust them or their reading or their claim? It's rather nonsensical to think God would have us base our faith and convictions on merely a human or a human construct when he clearly is omnipotent and, according to many ancient discriptors, certainly used his incomprehensible capacities to give answer to various parts of man kind.

If you can come to a realization of the futility of gaining any proof or disproof between mere discourse on subjects so grand and beyond such then some of these references to personal experiences perhapse will not seem so hair brained as to utterly justify denying them the chance to demonstrate themselves on a personal level--

Here's the challenge I've taken, and personally believe any can take and receive answer from God--

It's contained in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon--

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10

Don't take my word for it. I can't force or prove anything really. I hold the issue is between you and God at the foundational level. You make the choices you perceive to be the right ones and I'll leave the reality of such efforts to be a judgement between you and God.

I have read a small part of the Book of Mormon, and some of the New Testament. I may read more. But I won't ask God to tell me that if it is true. I am not seriously considering this as true, and I wouldn't bother god with every bit of religious literature that is thrown at me.
Besides which, my Bible warns me about foriegn gods, ones that my fathers did not know, and all brands of Christianity (inlcuding Mormonism) fall into that category.

 

[Mustard Seed]

I have read a small part of the Book of Mormon, and some of the New Testament. I may read more. But I won't ask God to tell me that if it is true. I am not seriously considering this as true, and I wouldn't bother god with every bit of religious literature that is thrown at me.
Besides which, my Bible warns me about foriegn gods, ones that my fathers did not know, and all brands of Christianity (inlcuding Mormonism) fall into that category.

Unless Mormonism is what it claims to be. In which case the other manifestations of Christianity and Judaism already are the very foreign gods and elements that your fathers did not know and 'Mormonism' is the restored purity of the very faith that Moses and Abraham had. Elijah is held up in Judaism. Why not take a test that in essense is the same he gave for discernment between the living God and a false one(s)? Why not use asking of God and receiving a response to judge which God is God? Will you pray to God and ask him if you are in the proper faith and have a proper view and a proper worship of him? Will you ask him if your reading and understandings of his words are correct? This doesn't need be a limited to simply asking God for negation of false faiths but can be used as a confirmation for perceived potential correct ones.

Will you pray and ask God if your view of him is correct and sufficient for salvation?