Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Logical issues with belief.


danydandan

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

That would make them hypocritical liars, not followers of Jesus. 

Peter was a hypocritical liar.  He denied Christ and cursed him during the Crucifixion.  He cut off a guys ear with his sword before the crucifixion.  He violently assaulted Roman guards and stole the body of Christ after the crucifixion. And the church is built on Peter the Rock right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, joc said:

Peter was a hypocritical liar.  He denied Christ and cursed him during the Crucifixion.  He cut off a guys ear with his sword before the crucifixion.  He violently assaulted Roman guards and stole the body of Christ after the crucifixion. And the church is built on Peter the Rock right?

Can you give me the source for all of your assertions? I'm assuming you've obtained the first three from a bible, the fourth assertion I'm curious on and am thinking it came from some other source and I would like to read it, and the last assertion I'm guessing...the Catholic church?

do you believe all of your assertions to be true? I'm just curious.

Edited by Jen5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:


Oh I didnt say there wasnt proof, just not physical / direct, more circumstantial / indirect / intangible. Like, say, the intelligent design that permeates every facet of this reality.. Belief is based on the interpretation of the observer, thats the issue, there is no definitive proof. Hence the word 'faith'.

 

Btw; this was the Nessie question:

"If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist."

Faith just means believe and trust. I wouldn't put my faith in someone imaginary. And they would be imaginary to me unless or until they showed me they were anything other than. Or else I would just be wishing and hoping.  That's not belief and trust. In my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Well....they did it, and with impunity. Their cause  was "right".......of course. 

I don't believe they did it with impunity. I think they'll answer for it. I also don't believe their cause was right.  Just my opinion though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

Can you give me the source for all of your assertions? I'm assuming you've obtained the first three from a bible, the third assertion I'm curious on and am thinking it came from some other source and I would like to read it, and the fourth assertion I'm guessing...the Catholic church?it

do you believe all of your assertions to be true? I'm just curious.

The first three are Biblical.  The assertion of Peter stealing the body of Jesus is not sourced.  It is just what I think is the most logical scenario since I obviously do not believe Jesus was resurrected.  Nor do I have a source that links Peter to the Catholic Church.  But we do know that Peter was violent and that The Catholic Church was also violent. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh...but wait...there is this:

According to Catholic teaching, Jesus promised Peter in the "Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18 a special position in the Church. He is traditionally counted as the first Bishop of Rome‍—‌or pope‍—‌and also by Eastern Christian tradition as the first Patriarch of Antioch.

The ancient Christian churches all venerate Peter as a major saint and as the founder of the Church of Antioch and the Roman Church,[2]but differ in their attitudes regarding the authority of his present-day successors (the primacy of the Bishop of Rome).

Edited by joc
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, joc said:

The first three are Biblical.  The assertion of Peter stealing the body of Jesus is not sourced.  It is just what I think is the most logical scenario since I obviously do not believe Jesus was resurrected.  Nor do I have a source that links Peter to the Catholic Church.  But we do know that Peter was violent and that The Catholic Church was also violent. 

I agree there was some violence and i mpulsiveness in peter. I guess I can see that he might be your best guess for the one who stole his body.

you know, (I am assuming), that I believe after receiving God's Spirit, the men were changed. Not to perfection and not immediately (one of the men berated Peter for a hypocrisy even after that point) , but  that their hearts began softening and they grew in love. There is no account of any of them murdering those who didn't agree with them when they preached. That appears to have happened much later, going by historians. I guess they could have murdered left and right but failed to put it in their writing...except for paul, he admitted what he had done. And one writer also told of it in the stoning of stephen. I don't know, they didn't seem to be puffed up on Se lf in their writings, but that's just what I see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, joc said:

oh...but wait...there is this:

According to Catholic teaching, Jesus promised Peter in the "Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18 a special position in the Church. He is traditionally counted as the first Bishop of Rome‍—‌or pope‍—‌and also by Eastern Christian tradition as the first Patriarch of Antioch.

The ancient Christian churches all venerate Peter as a major saint and as the founder of the Church of Antioch and the Roman Church,[2]but differ in their attitudes regarding the authority of his present-day successors (the primacy of the Bishop of Rome).

That's not what I take away from it when I read it. At all. But I guess everyone's entitled to their own thoughts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

I think they did....did you watch that video...? 

A friend of mine once took me to a church in Germany, up in the back are chambers literally filled with thousands of skulls and bones, my friend explained they were all form the Inquisition....Very chilling and disconcerting to actually see.

Ew...yeah, that would probably haunt me for some time if I saw it.

From what I have read, they will not go forever unpunished and will answer for it. I don't go for any of the nonsense that they will have some magical impunity before God at the end of this age. I know a lot of evangelicals might say so, but it sure doesn't fit with what I read. In fact, being a hypocrite receives a stiffer condemnation than being an unbeliever, or else how would jesu s say it would be wors in the final judgement for hypocrites than for towns God destroyed. That's scary to think that a religious hypocrite will be worse off than an unbeliever. Because they claim the exact opposite! They'll be shocked for sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jen5 said:

So if you answered that it would be illogical to believe lochness with no proof, and you answered that it would be illogical to believe God existed with no  proof, then why did you receive the "bullet?"

My assumption was that you answered one as true and one as false. You should have received no bullet if you answered both the same way. Of course, in my opinion, the fault lies with the test, because it is assumed by the test writer that no one has proof that God exists. 

 

No, I mean I dont think there isnt any proof.. I did answer one as true and the other as false, but that still doesnt make the hit sound imo. Like I said, I dont think the two subject matters can be combared in that way.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

No, I mean I dont think there isnt any proof.. I did answer one as true and the other as false, but that still doesnt make the hit sound imo. Like I said, I dont think the two subject matters can be combared in that way.

 

Okay, I get you. I think they can be compared th ough...why would you not believe the loch Ness monster exists but then believe God exists if you have no proof of either one? Wouldn't that be more of a ho pe than a belief?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jen5 said:

That's not what I take away from it when I read it. At all. But I guess everyone's entitled to their own thoughts. 

Well, we do know some things for certain.  The Catholic Church started the Knights of Solomon or The Knights Templar...to protect pilgrims from being attacked in the Holy Land by Muslims.  They became so proficient and powerful that the Church colluded with the King of France to destroy them.  Then came the Holy Wars in which slaughter was abound on both sides.  Either way you want to look at it the First Church of the Gooey Death was violent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but I don't believe they were the true church. I believe they were the wolves that came in after. The men who slaughtered men were wolves, not followers of Jesus, in my opinion. Just because they claimed to be the true church and claimed to follow Christ does not mean they were  truthful and not deluded.

I mean, if you claim to follow someone, that means you have studied their teachings and follow their teachings. If you quite plainly do no such thing, your claim is ridiculous, isn't it?

And the fact that you can't see your own hypocrisy just adds abject blindness onto the pile.

Edited by Jen5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have really enjoyed talking with you guys today. You are less judgmental, more respectful  and more tolerant of other beliefs than a lot of the people I've run across in supposedly Christian forums who claim to follow Jesus. They are quite often intolerant of a different understanding than their own, sometimes coming to spittle flinging rage over the translation of a word - no kidding. They can really slaughter each other and get truly vicious and angry. It ought not to be so, but it sometimes is. Though you meet some very gentle, humble and caring ones there too. They're just harder to find.

I hope to return for more conversation some day soon. Thanks for not shrieking at me when you found out I believe God exists. Not sure why I thought you might...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

Yeah, but I don't believe they were the true church. I believe they were the wolves that came in after. The men who slaughtered men were wolves, not followers of Jesus, in my opinion. Just because they claimed to be the true church and claimed to follow Christ does not mean they were  truthful and not deluded.

I mean, if you claim to follow someone, that means you have studied their teachings and follow their teachings. If you quite plainly do no such thing, your claim is ridiculous, isn't it?

And the fact that you can't see your own hypocrisy just adds abject blindness onto the pile.

The only followers of Christ were the Apostles...everyone else was just fodder of spectacle.

When the last Apostle died...the church reverted back into what it always had been.  They basically stuck a crucifix on top of the temple and went back to the old ways of money-changing in the church.  It has always been about money...it will always be about money...Faith, Trust, Love, Kindness...these have always been the condition of the Human Being.

Then....there are those who profess to be Christians who are anything but.  It is all an egotistical front.  I know a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, joc said:

The only followers of Christ were the Apostles...everyone else was just fodder of spectacle.

When the last Apostle died...the church reverted back into what it always had been.  They basically stuck a crucifix on top of the temple and went back to the old ways of money-changing in the church.  It has always been about money...it will always be about money...Faith, Trust, Love, Kindness...these have always been the condition of the Human Being.

Then....there are those who profess to be Christians who are anything but.  It is all an egotistical front.  I know a few.

There have been some men here and there, mostly dead now, who I have read and I believe they truly followed Christ as the apostles did, based on what they wrote. Some of them were treated poorly by the very ones they loved. But if it's true that the way is narrow and few ever find it, then this makes sense that you would see more deluded men and fewer humble men. And that unbelievers are often more humble and less materialistic than believers is like...the last nail in their coffin. Because they will actually condemn a man to hell who is more like Jesus than them. It's quite bizarre and upside down. It almost leaves you just speechless.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

There have been some men here and there, mostly dead now, who I have read and I believe they truly followed Christ as the apostles did, based on what they wrote. Some of them were treated poorly by the very ones they loved. But if it's true that the way is narrow and few ever find it, then this makes sense that you would see more deluded men and fewer humble men. And that unbelievers are often more humble and less materialistic than believers is like...the last nail in their coffin. Because they will actually condemn a man to hell who is more like Jesus than them. It's quite bizarre and upside down. It almost leaves you just speechless.

Here is the bottom line of money and the church:

If you take Jesus out of the church (and there are many that have basically) as long as you keep the 'tithe' theme alive...you will have a church.

But...

If you take the 'money' out of the church...you can preach Christ Crucified all day long...but no one will be there to hear it.  That should tell us something.

What it tells me is that the Faithful will be Faithful as long as they can do it in comfort and style.  Which means....money.  All...about...money.  

Another thing is...why is America such a sick, twisted, violent place...when there is practically a church on every corner...and it's all..TAX FREE money!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, joc said:

Here is the bottom line of money and the church:

If you take Jesus out of the church (and there are many that have basically) as long as you keep the 'tithe' theme alive...you will have a church.

But...

If you take the 'money' out of the church...you can preach Christ Crucified all day long...but no one will be there to hear it.  That should tell us something.

What it tells me is that the Faithful will be Faithful as long as they can do it in comfort and style.  Which means....money.  All...about...money.  

Another thing is...why is America such a sick, twisted, violent place...when there is practically a church on every corner...and it's all..TAX FREE money!

I see this too.

I still hope that one day I might stumble across some small pocket of...true brothers. But for the most part, I only find them after they're dead. Of course...I don't really think they're dead! :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jen5 said:

I see this too.

I still hope that one day I might stumble across some small pocket of...true brothers. But for the most part, I only find them after they're dead. Of course...I don't really think they're dead! :)

There are only two kinds of people on this planet.  Dead ones and Living Ones.  The Dead ones tell no tales.  And the Living ones have egos.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jen5 said:

Faith just means believe and trust. I wouldn't put my faith in someone imaginary. And they would be imaginary to me unless or until they showed me they were anything other than. Or else I would just be wishing and hoping.  That's not belief and trust. In my opinion.


Well yes, that would be the case if there werent any indications / indirect proof at all.. but we have (witness) accounts of His messengers throughout the ages, as well as indirect, corroborating evidence in the construct of our reality.

 

11 hours ago, Jen5 said:

 

Okay, I get you. I think they can be compared th ough...why would you not believe the loch Ness monster exists but then believe God exists if you have no proof of either one? Wouldn't that be more of a ho pe than a belief?

 


You would equate the necessary level of direct / physical proof of existence between a physical animal living in a physical (earthly) environment leaving physical proof of its existence with a non physical consciousness existing outside our reality leaving no physical proof (of His existence)? Again; for me to believe in the Loch Ness monster I would need to see physical / direct proof of its existence to label belief in its (physical) existence as rational. With G*d, such a demand would seem highly illogical, irrational, and completely misplaced (given G*d is inherently non- physical, unmeasurable, existing outside our reality).

Given your position here (if I understand it correctly), you seem to have found direct, physical evidence of the existence of G*d. Would you care to tell what that evidence entails?

Edited by Phaeton80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


Well yes, that would be the case if there werent any indications at all.. but we have witness accounts of His messengers throughout the ages, as well as indirect, corroborating evidence in the construct of our reality.

 


You would equate the necessary level of direct / physical proof of existence between a physical animal living in a physical (earthly) environment leaving physical proof of its existence with a non physical consciousness existing outside our reality leaving no physical proof (of His existence)? Again; for me to believe in the Loch Ness monster I would need to see physical / direct proof of its existence to label belief in its (physical) existence as rational. With G*d, such a demand would seem highly illogical, irrational, and completely misplaced (given G*d is inherently non- physical, unmeasurable, existing outside our reality).

Given your position here (if I understand it correctly), you seem to have found direct, physical evidence of the existence of G*d. Would you care to tell what that evidence entails?

Well sure I could talk about my evidence, but it wont, and shouldn't be, enough to convince anyone but myself. But no...not physical evidence that I can pass along. And even if I could, it wouldn't be enough for anyone, (and it shouldn't be). Even men who saw Him perform miracles didn't believe He was God. There couldn't possibly be any more direct physical evidence than that.

Actually...there is some bit of physical evidence, sometimes, for some people, but it won't be accepted as such. There are , for some, these odd goosebumps, even when it is quite warm, and an attending feeling of joy or peace, when God calls out to them. And if they meet someone else who has experienced this, there's the physical evidence of seeing the same goosebumps on that person's arms that are on theirs.

There's great biblical support for this, actually, from a man in Job who said a spirit passed by him and the flesh of his arms rose up, to the story of Samuel thinking eli was calling for him at night.

But it's not proof for others. It's proof for those who have experienced it. To others, it just sounds stark, raving mad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, did anyone ever look into the conflict between Paul and James the Just, the first Bishop of Jerusalem.. and the ideological split it resulted in?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, joc said:

The only followers of Christ were the Apostles...everyone else was just fodder of spectacle.

When the last Apostle died...the church reverted back into what it always had been.  They basically stuck a crucifix on top of the temple and went back to the old ways of money-changing in the church.  It has always been about money...it will always be about money...Faith, Trust, Love, Kindness...these have always been the condition of the Human Being.

Then....there are those who profess to be Christians who are anything but.  It is all an egotistical front.  I know a few.

I agree the church has largely reverted back to the same condition Israel was in and that God was angry about.

if you compare where they went wrong to what Jesus preached, such as to not worry over what you will eat, drink and be clothed with because God knows what you need, you see...the exact same lack of trust as in the desert! you see the same insistence on amassing wealth today as you see with Israel disobeying and collecting more food than they were instructed to in the desert! It's astounding, because most Christians have this view that God demanded trust (faith) from those in the desert but that THEY have a magic charm and will escape their own lack of trust. But do they see their lack of trust? No. Because if they did, you would see agonies and humility from them rather than arrogant judging, EVEN though they say they know they will be judged more harshly than unbelievers!

In fact, Jesus said to religious hypocrites: if you didn't claim you could see, you would have no sin! This puts the responsibility for men seeing squarely on God's shoulders. He was saying that a man who can't see God at all (yet) and who doesn't claim he can, has no sin, whereas a man who claims he can see but is blindly hypocritical and making the same exact mistakes as Israel concerning trust, has sin! It's so revolutionary, the fact that He loved unbelievers and had extremely harsh words for religious hypocrites, that you almost can t wrap your mind around it!

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.