If you were given proof that Jesus were either not the savior foretold of by the Old Testament, or that Jesus was a fictional character testified by people who either never actual saw him or where also fictional, would you stop believing in Jesus?
I'm sure you'll draw your own conclusions from that answer no matter what I say so...
That's interesting actually. The thing is you basically said that even if jesus were completely proven fictional you would still believe in him.
I am totally fine with people believing ANYTHING that they want. I am totally cool with that. I have a friend who believes he's a vampire and as silly as I believe that is I respect him.
Yep... I was 99 percent sure you would draw that conclusion.
That's why I didn't explain my answer further. Nothing I said would have really mattered anyway as you were just waiting...probably with a prepared answer... for someone to answer the way you wanted them to.
Why even bother to start a thread if you've already had both sides of the conversation in your own head?
What other response can I or anyone give? Your response to my response is rather hypocritical, don't you think? I mean why even bother responding to this thread at all if you already know what it entails?
*Shrugs* I guess on the vague hope that calling you out would teach you something about yourself.
So in other words you thought I was being antagonistic, I can assure you I was not intending to be looked at in such a way by you or anyone. I have made no assumptions about you yet you have made them about me.
Sort of... more I thought your statements were closed-minded and showed a limited understanding of Christianity. I believe you have a preconceived notion of the faith and have lumped all believers into a category that you view as irrational. This is just my personal opinion from not only this thread but your statements in others.
So no I don't believe that you had any real intentions for open discussion. I think you really did already have an outcome in your own head. However I tend to believe it was more a way to confirm your own opinions rather than an attempt to be antagonistic.
I can assure you that I have a full understanding of Christianity, I was raised Christian and I have been studying this issue for decades. Closed minded usually would imply that I was not willing to discuss this issue hypothetically and critically. I can assure you I am willing to discuss all aspects of this issue. I have also not lumped anyone of any belief into each other for the same reason I cannot be lumped together with all nonbelievers, say for instance (getitrite), I do not believe in generalizing a group of people for any reason, all people are individuals and must be judged accordingly, but there is a psychology to group mentality I intend to weed out.
My statement in other threads can only be taken out of context unless you followed my hubs and all that I have said in all threads about all subjects.
The only real thing you can say about me is I have a temper but am fair and though I am a nonbeliever in any sort of supernatural (thing) I am not unfriendly to those that do believe.
What are my intentions of this thread? I don't have an outlying conclusion or opinion to confirm, in fact there would be only two reasons for starting a thread like this, to antagonize or to find the answers to the questions presented.
What I ask of you now, is to either take part in this discussion without judging me as closed minded or if indeed you believe I am closed minded after this particular comment, then stop responding and go about with you decision.
Can you tell me that you are not more so closed minded as you accuse me of being?
I don't intend to continue this discussion with you unless it discusses the nature of your belief in what you have said (You would believe even if Jesus were proven false).
I hope you understand, if you think I have come to a conclusion then don't take part in this discussion.
You have knowledge of the Christianity you were raised in... that does not encompass all Christianity... just your limited experiences.
My faith does not require that I believe that Jesus was the son of God. My faith does not even require that I believe that he was a real human being. It never has so if you could somehow prove that he never existed it would not make one bit of difference at all to my beliefs.
So yes... I basically said that if Jesus was proven to be completely fictional I would still believe in him. Thank you for sardonically wording exactly what I said and meant. And no... that does not make me comparable to someone with Reinfield's Syndrome.
Whether Jesus was real or not in actuality means absolutely nothing to the Christian faith in general. There are individual believers that might need to believe that he actually walked the earth but for the institution in general it means nothing. The teachings of Christ in and of themselves are true. Philosophically it doesn't really matter who they are attributed to. They would be true if Jesus said them or if Hitler did as the source of wisdom does not impact in any way the validity of it. Psychologically, however, there needs to be a personal vessel to carry that wisdom. Jesus fills that position.
"You have knowledge of the Christianity you were raised in... that does not encompass all Christianity... just your limited experiences." I agree to the extent that if the Christianity I was raised in were indeed the only brand of Christianity that I had studied when in fact it was not, another assumption, you are prejudging me again.
I never studied Reinfield's Syndrome but that is not what I am studying either.
I can also respect that you believe in the teachings of Jesus absent of the teacher, in fact I think it is a quality of all good societies to practice a moral quality no matter it's origins. I do not believe that a personal vessel needs to carry a wisdom because it is a truth even if absent of all teachers. You need to eat, drink water, breath air, you don't need anyone to tell you that.
When I go to a school and learn certain principles in math, often times it's not important who came up with them, what matters is that they work.
It is inappropriate to compare basic physical needs with psychological needs. While it is completely logical to agree that wisdom is wisdom regardless of it's source it also ignores a basic psychological requirement that wisdom must come from a trusted source. In the previous example I said that wisdom could come from Hitler or Jesus without changing the truth of it. Which is true. But what it does change is the believably of the wisdom and the ability of people to accept it. Hitler telling us it would be wrong to kill would be completely valid, however it would carry little if no weight at all. The image of a man who would sacrifice himself to save us telling us not to kill is a bit more compelling.
"The image of a man who would sacrifice himself to save us telling us not to kill is a bit more compelling." Even if that man was shown to be as reliable as Hitler? Consider the question, if Jesus were found to be false, if you found out that Jesus was real yet a liar using the Jews as scapegoats for his own death would you still follow him?
Well, let me ask you that question and a new one: If you found out that the reason Jesus was written about was for the explicit purpose of antisemitism, meaning to get other people to hate the Jews as much as they (the authors of Jesus) apparently did, would you still follow him (Jesus)?
I can totally understand and respect following the lead of a character real or imagined merely based on what good things they symbolize.
I wanted to go back to your statement here about thinking I thought all believers being irrational and that I was closed minded.
What I want to know is how you feel I am closed minded? I mean you can ask me anything you want, I will answer it. Am I closed minded because I won't accept your ultimate reality or am I closed minded because I have already drawn conclusions and can't have my mind changed? What do you think would ultimately change my mind as what would ultimately change your mind? I am asking all these questions because I want to know, not because I don't respect that you believe what you believe.
Well... like take for example the post above yours... " I find them silly and immaturely irrational answers."
I've seen several posts like this one by you. As shown by your response to my initial answer in this thread you obviously would not have paid attention to any answer I wrote beyond me saying I still would believe in Jesus. You had prejudged me and my beliefs based on your preconceived notions of why that would be and what that said about my rationality and maturity level.
So? That means you are willing to state your own opinion not that you are ready to listen to the opinion of others.
I honestly could give a flying fig less about whether you accept my ultimate reality... whatever the hell that means. As I'm not sure I even HAVE an ultimate reality I certainly don't care whether YOU accept it or not. I don't want you in my faith... you have given me quite a few signs that you couldn't cope with it and would likely be a distraction to the members of my church. We like open communication and the exchange of new ideas. As I stated above I don't think you would fit in. I also don't care if you change your mind. It matters not one iota to me who or what you believe in.
My mind changes on a regular basis as I develop as a person. You are honestly not getting that the fact that you are an atheist doesn't bother me a bit. Quite a few members of my church are atheists. My problem is that you are attempting conversion to atheism by ridicule. I honestly don't see any other reason for the baiting of Christians. If you were looking for honest dialogue such statements as "I find them silly and immaturely irrational answers" would not be part of the discussion in response to a question that YOU asked.
You truly have no idea what I believe so you couldn't really disrespect it. I'm sure you have your thoughts on what I- as a Christian- believe but they are likely extremely wrong.
You are correct in sayingbthat i do not inderstand you as a christian, i find that christians dont have a cohesive view of what it means to be Christian. I also love how you like to take my comments out of context and generalize how I am going to react to each and every "believer". You have obviously made up your mind about me without giving the consideration of the reasons why someone might feel the need to react in such a way. And considering your reaction I find this completely hypocritical. However, that's not really a concern of mine. I am also not interested in converting or convincing anyone of my point of view. What I do say is that if you wish to assert something without evidence then expect to be dismissed. Though you say you don't care what I think you act contradictory.
Thank you for your continued participation.
*sighs* when will militant christians like this lot realise that they are just as extreme as the muslims who blow themselves up for their version of god?
Thank you! I don't think I've ever been called a militant Christian before. I actually took a screen shot to use as my wall paper for a while. It's a very uneducated and fundamentally incorrect assessment but it did make me smile.
What I really want to know is why do you or would you believe in someone that was a fabrication of one or more individuals?
I honestly don't think that you will be able to discuss my answer to that with anything but a closed mind.
It has a lot to do with personification of ideals and the need to aspire to that which is greater than yourself.
You are still making assumptions about me, you don't know me well enough to say I have a closed mind about what it is I am asking you to discuss with me. I can also totally understand having personal ideals and needs to be greater than yourself, is that not why people go to school and get an education? So that they can be better than what they are? I am constantly questioning everything about everything. I question myself constantly, I question the logic and ethics of my own actions on a daily basis. I question my own beliefs and knowledge constantly. My wife describes me as addicted to looking things up. I call myself an information junkie.
Once again I'm not making assumptions. I am making observations based on the previous behavior you have displayed combined with this thread. At this point I could point out that you compared me with someone who believed he was a vampire... and that you called me a hypocrite.
I was not comparing you to this person, what I was saying was that I can respect someone who believes truly in something that I believe is nonsense. The nature of my forum question is to talk about why, a reason I can assure you, escapes me. Why does someone believe in something that they know is false or have been told may be false, without question?
I am not judging you I can assure you, but like I said if you do not wish to discuss this for whatever reason then please stop responding and just leave. You don't wish to have an intelligent conversation with me on the subject because you have made up you mind as to my character based on some comments which may have been seemingly prejudiced or defensive. You have made up your mind, I can not change it unless you are open minded enough to discuss anything with me. Test me if you like. But if you don't want to discuss this then why bother responding?
No... I don't think so. I have the right to express my opinions on an open forum. It is as ridiculous for you to suggest I leave as it would be for me to say that you can leave if you don't like them.
When you put your opinions out, then there is a reasonable expectation that they will be questioned... that includes the possible motivation behind those opinions.
So in other words you want to be a troll as far as that goes? I am okay with expressing an opinion on a particular topic but it says more about your character than it does about mine when you refuse to take part in the discussion at hand and rather attack the integrity of the person or persons involved in the discussion.
I do appreciate your response, in the above comments as well, as willing as you are to answer them. I just think it's sad that you must question or attack the reasoning behind such questions outright. If you don't think something productive will come from this topic then responding to it in such a manner makes you a troll. Not saying you are. What I will say is you have been difficult for no good reason.
"When you put your opinions out, then there is a reasonable expectation that they will be questioned... that includes the possible motivation behind those opinions." I believe that is why there is a discussion forum.
Questioning is one thing but accusing is quite another don't you think? You have made many assumptions as to my character and the outcome of this discussion.... have you been correct in them?
Nope... not trolling at all. Any honest discussion on an opinion will ultimately involve the motivations behind opinions. Also, the purpose of a question is often more important than the question itself. I've not been difficult at all unless hearing someone else's views of your progression of opinions in the past can be considered difficult to you. I'm not attacking your integrity at all... just making observations. If you feel these observations are at odds with the way you view yourself feel free to take whatever steps necessary to cope with that... be it dismissing my observations or internalizing them. I calls 'em how I sees them though and would have no reason to lie to you about how your opinions appear to me.
Fair enough, but equally I see you as a troll in how you go about antagonistically questioning the motivations for such questions without empathizing based on what you have read on all my responses in the past... have you at least read any of my hubs?
If you can judge me on the fact that I am an atheist and that I question and argue with anyone that I disagree with as being hateful or misunderstanding of them then I can do the same to you, is that not correct? It's like the old racist judging all Black people as ignorant, when in fact there are black persons smarter than the majority of most white persons. Neil Degrasse Tyson is one great example of that, the same goes for any and all prejudices. You have not yet had a discussion with me until now so how is it you can actually judge me as open or closed minded?
I don't know where this discussion could lead us next, but what you have told me is very useful to my study, and I thank you for it as graciously as I can.
Everything I have said in this and all hub forums so far tells you not even a fraction of a percent of who I am as a person but if you want to be closed minded enough to limit yourself to judging me the way you have.
I'm Ah thinking that all that anyone can do is prove that .. that many people will have to alter their definition OF who Jesus was/IS.
To say say wh had proven Anything more would have to be jumping to false conclusions
Since there is no negative proof of Jesus you can present, Why ask the question. It makes no sense.
What do you mean, no negative proof of Jesus?
The question makes perfect sense. You're gonna have to explain what you mean further.
You have provided no proof, no documentation, nothing that substantiates your position that Jesus is not real. I on the other hand do have proof of his existance.
Oh! Well that isn't the issue. This is a hypothetical argument. The question was if he turned out to be a fraud would you still believe. However, if you have evidence please tell me what that evidence is because in all my years of research I have found none conclusive. Nor has anyone who has made that claim as you have.
Jesus' teachings aside from the mysticism based nonsense is/would remain valid.
Love, Mercy and Compassion are just several keys of understanding one requires.
I'd 'thumb-up' this answer if it were possible.
I am all for love, compassion and mercy as well as understanding and empathy to add just a few of the many behaviors I subscribe to. However, that doesn't answer the question.
I don't believe in Jesus to begin with.
I do know that the original message, I said above would still remain valid, if you get rid of the mysticism based nonsense attached to it presently.
Whether or not Jesus is a G/god makes no difference to the message itself.
If there was proof beyond any doubt that he was human, it wouldn't invalidate his original message. It would only expose the deception of those who compiled the books religions of the world uses.
I am with you on that one. I don't consider the message of love that Jesus originally was supposed to have taught as being invalidated by his being either human or fictional. Which isnt really the issue for myself at all. I am looking at this not as an atheist but from the psychological aspect of believing in someone that may or may not have been real.
I would say that Jesus existed. He was an extremely smart individual who understood life and living, and the world around him.
If Jesus didn't exist, then where did the original message from?
What is the mystical parts of Jesus teachings?
Is it the parts that you made up?
or the parts that you do not like?
or is it the parts that you understand?
or is it the part that you claim they have made up?
Either way mysticism and miracles exist because of the misunderstandings of the observer, So if one must reject one he also must reject the other.
And then he would find that never knew the teaching of Jesus to begin with for if he did, he would not butcher it.
The part which talks about a G/god.
I didn't make them up.
I don't have a problem with his original message absent the BS.
There's nothing about the world religions I don't understand.
They? Who? Are you talking about the morons who put the books together? Who knows.
No need to believe in miracles or mysticism. To understand life and living is to understand both are not required.
It was already butchered. Before you or billions of others over centuries ever thought possible.
It's hard to question a God that we made up, because we already know the answer, he's made up. It's hard to question a God for which we didn't make up and have no knowledge of his possible fictitious nature. What is possible is to question the validity of a God if we have enough information about the world around us, to say whether or not such a God is not just valid but necessary to the existence of everything, including morality.
Jesus claimed that God was his Father or his Father is God...
So Jesus Teaching indeed included God...is that mystical?
Or maybe you do not like or understand his teachings after all?
No. The bible claims that Jesus claim that God was his father. You see, that's something entirely different than Jesus actually making the claim.
There's absolutely nothing to prove it. The gospels were written a long time after Jesus was executed. And the compilation of gospels has been in untrustworthy hands. Some were left out, so you cannot be sure of anything with regards to it.
Apparently, you don't know much about the "time" Jesus lived nor do you seem to know anything about where humans were in their development.
I understand them well enough to have created a plan for peace. Have you? Probably not, considering you're not interested in peace, are you?
All the teachings of Jesus that I know of, both within and without the bible, written and unwritten are cohesive and inclusive of God as Father.
He also said he did come necessarily to bring peace but a sword, this sword would divide brother against brother, Father against sons, mother against daughters.
Are you saying that Jesus did not teach these things?
I know it is easy to dismiss when you have not understood, thus to you this would be mysticism.
"I understand them well enough to have created a plan for peace. Have you? Probably not, considering you're not interested in peace, are you?" That seems awfully antagonistic, I don't believe kess made any claims for or against peace, one could make the same statement about you, that you are not interested in peace due to being antagonistic.... no offense just an observation.
I can gather that you're observation is just that. An observation is no different than perception.
Kess is attempting to insert a G/god into the conversation when there's no need to do so. He is also attempting to tell me that I've not learned Jesus' teachings, which in fact, I've researched world religion. I remain more consciously aware of my surroundings than the average person. Life itself isn't complicated by any stretch of the imagination.
I use my conscience more than I use my ego. It is what keeps me balanced. Anyone can derive the message Jesus wanted without the mysticism or miracles attributed to him, and still find peace in this world. Why? Because, the peace each person seeks is peace of mind and self. It's the only true foundation for the full power of love to be found. It starts with the individual.
The methodology Jesus taught people was about consciousness. Something at that time, thought to be mystical in nature. It's not.
Secondly, he was the one who engaged me. So, was his action ego driven or conscience driven? And, are you even sure you can tell the difference?
"I can gather that you're observation is just that. An observation is no different than perception." That is my point. Okay so he inserted "God" into this discussion, and since Jesus' claim to fame is that he is either the direct son of God and/or is God, can we not also refute this?
TO KESS, IF you found the entirety of God and Jesus to be no more valid than say the old Egyptian and Greek mythologies, would you reject your current beliefs or stand by them knowing full well they are invalid?
Then it's a bad perception.
And my point which apparently you're missing is that Jesus' teachings do not require a G/god to exist to be understood or lived.
His message IS enough without it. Plain and simple. That's all. Get it?
That was well understood Cagsil, I am well aware that you are an atheist as I am. I am also with you on the basic ideologues of Jesus, though I personally have concluded Jesus to be a fictional character whether or not God had anything to do with it is irrelevant. I believe Moses was a real person but don't believe he was divinely inspired, that is another topic all together.
Perception cannot be good or bad it is what it is, the conclusions made by the perception for which I have explicitly stated, I have made none, can be, the judgments of such perceptions. In other words, if someone does things that can be viewed as bad, though that does not make the person bad, he will be judged on his actions not on who he is as a whole. If every time I encounter you (and because of the topic) we fight, you attack me for whatever and I retaliate for whatever, we can both equally perceive each other as not someone we would want to know, yet in real terms we might actually be the best of friends.
If is a very big word....but to be fair to your question in itself.
Then I must admit I would have to forsake it for what it actually is.
But I must be again fair to you in saying that to me the Egyptian and Greek mythologies have a different meaning to me than most would accept.
But in the end what is considered as proof of Truth is the decisive factor, not the actual position taken.
Thank you for being honest. I appreciate it. I do wonder about the psychological implications of finding out that everything you believe being a lie. As an atheist and someone who constantly questions reality and facts and scrutinizes the collected knowledge of the world, I can accept if I were to find out that what I currently believe were wrong. Being in a community of believers, however, could you publicly proclaim to being wrong or that you have lost your faith? I have found out tht many in the Christian community are closet atheists. So what does that mean for the rest of us? Or for the religious community? I worry about major changes such as these psychologically.
Many characters from the Bible claimed God to be their father and indeed if God was the creator then he is a father to all, from my interpretations of the Bible, Jesus was not claiming to be the son of God but that all men including himself was the son of God.... at least at first. As far as Jesus including God, isn't that a given? And isn't then since the Bible is all about God that everything in the Bible is "mystical"?
This has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, the things that are true are true whether or not Jesus or God exist at all. Do unto others as you would have them do to you, that's basic, this idea came when people first started living together in small groups.
Since religious beliefs are psychotic disorders, it would be impossible to prove that the delusion was not real. It has already been proven, by simple critical analysis that religious beliefs are nonsense, yet they still believe anyway.
It is not possible to reason with psychotic delusion.
That's an interesting statement. Is there a name for the delusion that makes internet writers believe that they are trained psychologists?
So all believers are delusional and psychotic? If that were the case then it would not be possible to change someone from a believer to a nonbeliever. Your point of view seems to be a bit prejudicial and somewhat hateful towards someone who does not believe the way you do. The same sort of thing many believers are guilty of.
I will contend that religious beliefs are not psychotic disorders (however your prejudice seems to be) but they are raised to believe in such histories however fictional as real things. How often did you question your parents or friends or any loved ones of some event or fact that may or may not have been true? Do you take people at their word or do you reject all statements made until scientific facts can be set up to prove them? I am not merely talking about faith or questioning faith I am talking about being irrationally cynical and skeptical of everything.
I've heard of this as well. People just perceive the world differently- it's hard for people to understand that something that seems very real to them may not be real..
everyone is a little disordered.. nothing to get uppity about.
Yes. I try not to be confrontational about contradicting people or myself being contradicted by people. I envite people to prove me wrong on a daily basis as I constantly question the world and my knowledge of it. I know what is false and I can never turn back from that, as in I have lost my ability to believe in fantasy worlds, or beings suh as god, because I know what is possible and impossible. What that means and what the ultimate answer is remains unknown. I refuse to fill tht ultimate question with ultimate made up answers such as deities , all powerful, all knowing, beings that created everything. I find them silly and immaturely irrational answers.
I agree.. I mean- the world works perfectly fine without it. I've never had any experience in my life or any cause to believe that there is something supernatural or extra going on. I mean- sure it'd be cool (the afterlife part).. but it's silly. I think it's kind of silly for me to respond on these types of questions, since (to me, anyways) it's all a myth, but I can't help it lol. I love reading what agnostics and atheists say in response to these kinds of questions. Seeing believers respond, most of the time, makes my stomach kind of churn, because they get very mean when other people voice what they believe. But, some atheists are like this too- just not as many. Of course, I'm biased. I know this though.
idk why people would want to follow a god that they believe is all powerful and all knowing and is willing to send people to suffer for eternity for sin- that's something that completely blows my mind. Can't wrap my head around it.
All I know is that, ever since I've stopped believing and trying to make sense of what I was told.. I am MUCH happier and feel much more fulfilled.
Matt...what? Do christians implode? Yes, 'Love your neighbor and do unto others as you would they do unto you' is pretty threatening stuff. I'm scared!
@artblack01, an interesting hypothetical question.
My answer is simply, "no."
But your question is rather unreal, because such proof is an impossibility without a time machine to take us back to the places and events. With that time machine, we would have to scour every location over a period of years to ensure we did not miss Jesus walking by and performing his miracles. We would have to learn Aramaic and perhaps Greek and possibly Hebrew.
Your stance seems to be also one lacking logic for it begs for an argument to ignorance, a logical fallacy. Simply because you don't have proof doesn't mean Christ Jesus didn't exist. The lack of proof of a fact does not disprove that fact. It could remain, logically speaking, either a false fact or a true fact. Lack of proof does not change this. (For clarification, look up "argument to ignorance" logical fallacy.)
Your purpose seems to be suspect, too. I didn't read all that you've written here, but one comment caught my eye:
"What I really want to know is why do you or would you believe in someone that was a fabrication of one or more individuals?"
If you had truly been one to learn and to explore truth, you wouldn't have phrased it this way. You're stating your hypothetical here as fact. Not a very honest approach to a hypothetical.
Your Lovecraft quote is not very logical, either. "If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences."
There are some good points, here. But the big flaw is in drawing a conclusion that is non sequitur (logical fallacy, again). It assumes that all followers of a religion fully understand and adhere to the principles of that religion. I'd like to point out that ego is the culprit in so many problems of society, including in religion. Religion is, in and of itself, not the problem. Interpretation and the ego attached to it is the problem. Ego is the source of wars and conflict. Ego is the source of abuse and self-righteousness pretending to be religious. Lovecraft points out an important issue, but his lousy logic draws the wrong conclusion. Religion is true, but interpretations by most followers are false.
Why do I adhere to my belief in Jesus Christ despite any so-called "evidence" anyone might bring forward?
My evidence is personal experience. The Bible tells us that we were created in the image and likeness of God. Most Christians miss the true intent of this -- that we are inherently spiritual beings with the ability to create. God wants his children back, and He is not Homo sapiens.
My evidence includes the changes in my life over the last 60 years every time I hear truth. A part of me awakens -- the child of God, within, recognizes the voice of the Father and the Son.
If you found that Jesus were a fraud you'd still follow him. Okay... One can come to any conclusion they want here but then you go on to claim a logical fallacy by saying there is no way to prove someone false from 2000 years ago without a time machine. However, you could say the same for all sorts of Greek, and roman and Egyptian and even Hindu deities and figures.
You really didn't understand the word hypothetical or the nature of the question if you are saying that I was stating my hypothetical as fact, that's a contradiction, because a hypothetical implies that "if something were a fact" the key word is if. It doesnt require honesty it's a hypothetical question requiring a hypothetical answer, making your answer of no not very honest either.
Your conclusion that religion is true and the interpretations of the followers is false is funny because the religion is not based on any facts of reality it's based on faith and emotional attachment as you have demonstrated by saying you would still believe in Jesus and deny his being false even if enough evidence existed that proved he were false.
You say your evidence is personal experience, yet personal experience is only evidence to the individual, that isn't really evidence that is emotional desire of your ego, which you demonstrate by saying that the Bible says we were created in God's image. Whether the Binle is truth or fiction is no concern because you believe it no matter what. It could be proven to be 100% fictional and you would still believe it.
Any book, any philosophy, any ideology, true or fictional, can change your life.
Your statement avoids the question. What conclusion do you think I can get from this?
by secularist104 years ago
Let the madness begin.
by LINEOFPROGRESSION7 years ago
Believers of a god: What (if anything), would lead you to stop believing?Non-believers: What (if anything), could convert you to belief in a god?
by Link101032 years ago
Do you agree with this? It seems to me that some of the holier than thou christians on this site legitimately believe with all their heart that those who do not believe in their god will have special front row tickets...
by Claire Evans5 years ago
If somebody truly believed that Santa was God, I would not even bother addressing that person because the insane CANNOT be reasoned with.
by God shet2 years ago
by Peter Freeman7 years ago
I keep hearing and reading this phrase and I must confess it doesn't make sense to me. I know what "Believe" means and I know what "in" means. It's when the two words are put together I don't...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.