Are you a liar?

[Redemptionsong]

There is no knowledge of Jesus, just faith-based beliefs asserted as fact without evidence.

Let's take a step back and look at the differences between a humanist outlook and that of a believer in the Bible as the Word of God.

A humanist draws a very clear epistemological boundary when determining what can be known.

Here is an extract from the American Humanist Manifesto (version 111) 2003:
'Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.'

Two phrases used in this passage, 'rational analysis' and 'critical intelligence', tell us all we need to know about the limitations of human knowledge as understood by Humanists. There is no spiritual dimension to life. This means that there can be no God or Creator, no life after death, and no spiritual connectivity between people (such as Holy Spirit). It also means that words like 'love' have to be subject to the same critical analysis. What is 'love' when observed, subjected to experiment and analysed? If we're to believe Richard Dawkins, and the like, then the human being really has no capacity for genuine love, because the selfish gene ultimately overrides altruism.

The God of the Bible presents a very different outlook on life. Firstly, creation is not accidental. It's an act of love. Secondly, the Spirit of the Creator is present in His creation, in life itself. Love, instead of being an aspect of selfish desire, becomes a gift from God. Faith, instead of being a superstition, becomes the evidence of God's reality, and a response to love.

In Romans 10:4 Paul says, 'For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth'. In other words, faith in Christ is not man trying to be good, but man receiving the goodness of God's Spirit by faith. To receive God's righteousness according to the Bible one must be humble, contrite, and not self-righteous. How different this is from the Humanist whose whole philosophy is telling him to be strong minded and of 'critical intelligence'. The Humanist is naturally opposed to faith, and this makes unconditional love both meaningless, and impossible to realise!

 

[stvdv]

I know my comment is slightly off-topic

I can tell you, that your comment is spot on
Krishna might have whispered it to you

but I wanted to tell you that your mention of Krishna reminds me of

I love that song, and I've good memories of the Beatles and especially this song. Thanks a lot

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

True, no sane person will deny that, nor will the Creator, He is responsible for both good and bad

I've had my share of both good and challenging

I hope you will get lots of good from now on, as you've been gone through quite an ordeal I have to say, reading your post. Not easy, when all this happens when you are a baby onwards. I hope you believe in yourself...that is very important

I heard one Master once say "you were given your life, and you can do as you like with it, no one has the right to impose their (non) faith on you, or tell you that your (non) faith is wrong or even worse, tell you that you go to hell". This helped me to regain bit by bit my Self Confidence (still working on it)

My life is much better now, but it took some time to emotionally recover after I disavowed my Christian faith. Letting go of my faith in God was frightening and distressing for me at first, but the burden of the journey grew less and less heavy on my heart as time went by. I'm glad that I stuck it out, and I didn't give up. I finally have peace in my life, and I never had that when I was a Christian.

I can tell you, that your comment is spot on
Krishna might have whispered it to you

I love that song, and I've good memories of the Beatles and especially this song. Thanks a lot

You're welcome, my friend. Peace.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Two phrases used in this passage, 'rational analysis' and 'critical intelligence', tell us all we need to know about the limitations of human knowledge as understood by Humanists. There is no spiritual dimension to life. This means that there can be no God or Creator, no life after death, and no spiritual connectivity between people (such as Holy Spirit).

You have misunderstood humanism and its empiricist epistemology. I am a humanist and make neither of those statements.

It also means that words like 'love' have to be subject to the same critical analysis. What is 'love' when observed, subjected to experiment and analysed? If we're to believe Richard Dawkins, and the like, then the human being really has no capacity for genuine love, because the selfish gene ultimately overrides altruism.

Again, you don't understand the inner life of the humanist, and you don't understand Dawkins. Do you know what makes genes selfish in his book? It seems not. It's unrelated to selfish behavior in human beings.

I think many see humanists as people who only reason - perhaps like Star Trek's Mr. Spock, who has no emotion and loves nothing. That is incorrect. Such people don't understand the role reason plays in the humanist's life. It does not extinguish or replace dreams or the passions. Its role is to promote and support having those kinds as experiences by properly determining what is true about the world and how it works.

We are artists and musicians. We love and we laugh. We volunteer. We seek beauty and admire kindness. We try to make the world a better place. We have a strong sense of right and wrong based in the Golden Rule. When Christians are marginalizing and demonizing atheist and gays, and trying to impose their values on all others using government, humanists preach tolerance, diversity, and inclusivity. Humanists brought democracy and guaranteed human rights to modernity, replacing the Christian vision of government that dominated the Middle Ages.

Humanists promote human development and empowerment, and celebrate the human potential. You might want to look at the Affirmations of Humanism to see a summary of the worldview that begins with the application of reason to evidence and to a moral intuition as I have described. What you will read there and what I have written here are the results of that kind of thinking.

You might also want to look at this:

Spoiler: My "God" Is Reason

This was written by a man named Richard Banford

"Do you know his name? Sure you do. He talks to you every day. You could not live a normal life without him. You believe in him, whether you like it or not. Unless you abandon him completely, you cannot deny he exists.

"My god is a more personal god than yours can ever be, for if you have enough sense to understand these words, my god lives within you. He lives within us all, to some degree. A heartbreaking few cannot understand him, but this is not their fault. The real tragedy is the multitudes who ignore much of his counsel, particularly when he questions your god too deeply.

"My god has been around longer than your god. He was here before the many other gods that preceded your god. Though you will likely scoff at the notion, my god was the father of your god, as he was to all gods. But that was long ago when he was young and not yet sure of himself. Though many of your god's followers try to hold him down, my god grows stronger and more independent each day.

"When your god expelled us from paradise for eating an apple, my god taught us to grow our own fruit.

"When your god forbade knowledge, demanding we live in ignorance, my god created books.

"When your god smote cities like a tantrum-prone child, my god helped to rebuild them.

"When your god insisted the world was flat, my god showed his followers it was round, to their peril at the hands of your god's followers.

"While your god watched in silence as children sickened and died, my god created medicines to make them well.

"When your god winked and nodded at slavery, my god argued passionately against it.

"While your god represses half the human race, my god considers woman to be the equal of man.

"When your god only helps those who help themselves, my god rolls up his sleeves and actually does help until your god decides to join in, and then steals all the credit.

"When your god inspired great buildings and great art, my god made them possible.

"While your god says we are all born sinners, tainted before we even draw breath, my god says we are all born innocent; a clean slate with limitless potential.

"While your god offers dubious allusions of an afterlife, my god provides for us here in this life.

"While your god makes amazing promises, but offers not a shred of proof, my god performs amazing deeds, and the proof is there to be seen by all.

"While your god demands blind faith and obsequious obedience, my god encourages questions, even about himself.

"When your god says "Thou shalt not," my god says "You can do anything."

"My god is reason. He does more in a day than your god will ever do."

 

[Draco99]

The evangelist John asks a very challenging question in his first epistle (1 John 2:22). He asks, 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

He goes on to say, 'He is an anti-christ, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:'

Strong words from a man who preached a God of love!

But, how does one arrive at the position that a man is a liar if he denies that Jesus is Christ? I guess the opening premise is that God is Truth [Deut. 32:4 etc]. From here one can reasonably deduce that God's Word is true, and that Christ, coming from God, is the Word of God [Rev. 19:13]. If this be the case, then a denial of Christ is a denial of truth [John 14:6]. To deny truth is to make truth a lie. Is this, therefore, the unforgivable sin?

Christ deniers really have no rock to stand on when 'truth' becomes a victim, as happens in war. Where is the hope of justice if there is no God to hear your cry? If your daughter is raped and murdered by soldiers, or your son tortured, tied and shot in the back of the head, how do you respond? Hate and seek revenge? Add your vitriol to the great hell of war? Seek justice from courts that may never provide justice? Give up on life itself, with no hope of glory?

I'm with Paul, who said, 'For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.' [Phil.1:21]

Whenever others concern themselves with differences, the few consider what's shared. I believe if a thousand lies can be chained, the truth will show up somewhere amongst the grain. My inner poet couldn't help it.

 

[F1fan]

Let's take a step back and look at the differences between a humanist outlook and that of a believer in the Bible as the Word of God.

A humanist draws a very clear epistemological boundary when determining what can be known.

Here is an extract from the American Humanist Manifesto (version 111) 2003:
'Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.'

Two phrases used in this passage, 'rational analysis' and 'critical intelligence', tell us all we need to know about the limitations of human knowledge as understood by Humanists. There is no spiritual dimension to life. This means that there can be no God or Creator, no life after death, and no spiritual connectivity between people (such as Holy Spirit).

Your reply here has numerous problems. One is that you are approaching your analysis of Humanism with assumptions from Christianity. The concepts of God, Creator, Holy Spirit, life after death, etc. are not factual. There is no rational basis to assume these concepts are relevant to a framework that IS rational and factual in how it makes assessments. Second is whatever is generally framed as a "spiritual connection" between people is essentially basic human traits of love, compassion, belonging, commitment, etc. These aren't religious concepts but religions have relied on them as crucial to religious doctrines and belief.

It also means that words like 'love' have to be subject to the same critical analysis. What is 'love' when observed, subjected to experiment and analysed? If we're to believe Richard Dawkins, and the like, then the human being really has no capacity for genuine love, because the selfish gene ultimately overrides altruism.

You seem to be referring to the genetic fault that makes a person a sociopath, as they are unable to feel empathy. About 1 in 24 people are born sociopaths. But apart from that most everyone else can feel love to some degree. How it is felt and expressed is tied to maturity levels, but it is not related to the selfish gene as you claim here.

The God of the Bible presents a very different outlook on life. Firstly, creation is not accidental. It's an act of love.

I'm not quite sure the Bible says that, but Christians do interpret the Bible is all sorts of different ways. Christians definitely interpret the Old Testament in ways the Jews do not.

Secondly, the Spirit of the Creator is present in His creation, in life itself. Love, instead of being an aspect of selfish desire, becomes a gift from God. Faith, instead of being a superstition, becomes the evidence of God's reality, and a response to love.

The Bible might say this, or believers might interpret the Bible to mean this, but in any event, none of it is factual. This is literature that describes certain things that do not correlate to what we humans can verify exist or is true.

In Romans 10:4 Paul says, 'For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth'. In other words, faith in Christ is not man trying to be good, but man receiving the goodness of God's Spirit by faith. To receive God's righteousness according to the Bible one must be humble, contrite, and not self-righteous. How different this is from the Humanist whose whole philosophy is telling him to be strong minded and of 'critical intelligence'. The Humanist is naturally opposed to faith, and this makes unconditional love both meaningless, and impossible to realise!

The Bible isn't relevant. Religious faith isn't useful to Humanists and atheists. But you are mistaken to claim that there is some deficiency in Humanists where it comes to love. Frankly your biased attitude here shows a great deal of contempt and a lack of this loves that you seem to be bragging about among Bible believers. This illustrates a major moral blindspot that theists of many stripes have, and cannot see due to their ego being threatened by the existences of Humanists and atheists. There seems to be a sort of any that atheists can love and live much the same way as theists without the baggage of religion. I get the impression by some believers that their faith is a burden they feel trapped within and envy the freedom atheists have.

 

[blü 2]

The evangelist John asks a very challenging question in his first epistle (1 John 2:22). He asks, 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

For the statement "Jesus is the messiah / anointed one / Χριστός / Christ" to be true, there must first be an agreed definition of "messiah [&c]" and Jesus must comply with it.

"Messiah" means "anointed", and we're dealing with the Tanakh here, so the anointing has to be done by the Jewish priesthood. Messiahs were civil, military or religious leaders of the Jewish people, who (in the 1st century CE) would restore Judea's autonomy.

Jesus fits nowhere in that picture. So this would be an accurate statement ─ "Given the meaning of 'messiah' as understood in his time and place, and given an historical Jesus, Jesus was not a messiah or 'the' messiah."

Only later are we dealing with the Christian concept of a messiah, where Jesus and messiah are declared to be synonyms.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Your reply here has numerous problems. One is that you are approaching your analysis of Humanism with assumptions from Christianity. The concepts of God, Creator, Holy Spirit, life after death, etc. are not factual. There is no rational basis to assume these concepts are relevant to a framework that IS rational and factual in how it makes assessments. Second is whatever is generally framed as a "spiritual connection" between people is essentially basic human traits of love, compassion, belonging, commitment, etc. These aren't religious concepts but religions have relied on them as crucial to religious doctrines and belief.


You seem to be referring to the genetic fault that makes a person a sociopath, as they are unable to feel empathy. About 1 in 24 people are born sociopaths. But apart from that most everyone else can feel love to some degree. How it is felt and expressed is tied to maturity levels, but it is not related to the selfish gene as you claim here.


I'm not quite sure the Bible says that, but Christians do interpret the Bible is all sorts of different ways. Christians definitely interpret the Old Testament in ways the Jews do not.


The Bible might say this, or believers might interpret the Bible to mean this, but in any event, none of it is factual. This is literature that describes certain things that do not correlate to what we humans can verify exist or is true.


The Bible isn't relevant. Religious faith isn't useful to Humanists and atheists. But you are mistaken to claim that there is some deficiency in Humanists where it comes to love. Frankly your biased attitude here shows a great deal of contempt and a lack of this loves that you seem to be bragging about among Bible believers. This illustrates a major moral blindspot that theists of many stripes have, and cannot see due to their ego being threatened by the existences of Humanists and atheists. There seems to be a sort of any that atheists can love and live much the same way as theists without the baggage of religion. I get the impression by some believers that their faith is a burden they feel trapped within and envy the freedom atheists have.

You're quite welcome to your humanist beliefs, but the prophecies of the Bible speak of a far deeper truth, lMO. Let's not forget that all who profess belief in Jesus Christ were born as unbelievers! We have the advantage of knowing both 'worlds'.

The prophecies of lsaiah were in existence long before Jesus was born, yet Jesus refers to its prophecies in the synagogue in Nazareth shortly after his baptism. He quotes from lsaiah 61, claiming that the words are about the Messiah, and that he is the one 'anointed' by God to fulfil the prophecy.

The numerous witnesses to Jesus confirm that he not only existed but that he lived, died, and was resurrected, as described in the Bible.

The succession of believers in Jesus, as Christ, has gone unbroken since Jesus walked the earth. The evidence for this lies in the life that Christ brings, through the Spirit.

Your emphasis on 'facts' and rejection of faith means you will forever live in your sin. And if you claim you are without sin, your words betray your lies.

1 John 1:8 ' lf we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.'

Such is the spiritual perception of a God who knows the heart of man.

 

[Redemptionsong]

For the statement "Jesus is the messiah / anointed one / Χριστός / Christ" to be true, there must first be an agreed definition of "messiah [&c]" and Jesus must comply with it.

"Messiah" means "anointed", and we're dealing with the Tanakh here, so the anointing has to be done by the Jewish priesthood. Messiahs were civil, military or religious leaders of the Jewish people, who (in the 1st century CE) would restore Judea's autonomy.

Jesus fits nowhere in that picture. So this would be an accurate statement ─ "Given the meaning of 'messiah' as understood in his time and place, and given an historical Jesus, Jesus was not a messiah or 'the' messiah."

Only later are we dealing with the Christian concept of a messiah, where Jesus and messiah are declared to be synonyms.

John the Baptist, son of Zechariah the priest, was an acknowledged prophet in lsrael, and he baptised Jesus.

Jesus fulfils the prophecies of lsaiah that tell us about the 'Anointed One'.

Isaiah 11:1,2. ' And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
And the spirit of the the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spiirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;'

Isaiah 61:1. ' The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;'

In referring himself to lsaiah 61, Jesus claims to be the Messiah. If you deny that Jesus was telling the truth, you make him a liar.

So, it's simple enough. Either Jesus was a liar, or you are (even if you don't think of it as a lie!).

 

[Redemptionsong]

You have misunderstood humanism and its empiricist epistemology. I am a humanist and make neither of those statements.



Again, you don't understand the inner life of the humanist, and you don't understand Dawkins. Do you know what makes genes selfish in his book? It seems not. It's unrelated to selfish behavior in human beings.

I think many see humanists as people who only reason - perhaps like Star Trek's Mr. Spock, who has no emotion and loves nothing. That is incorrect. Such people don't understand the role reason plays in the humanist's life. It does not extinguish or replace dreams or the passions. Its role is to promote and support having those kinds as experiences by properly determining what is true about the world and how it works.

We are artists and musicians. We love and we laugh. We volunteer. We seek beauty and admire kindness. We try to make the world a better place. We have a strong sense of right and wrong based in the Golden Rule. When Christians are marginalizing and demonizing atheist and gays, and trying to impose their values on all others using government, humanists preach tolerance, diversity, and inclusivity. Humanists brought democracy and guaranteed human rights to modernity, replacing the Christian vision of government that dominated the Middle Ages.

Humanists promote human development and empowerment, and celebrate the human potential. You might want to look at the Affirmations of Humanism to see a summary of the worldview that begins with the application of reason to evidence and to a moral intuition as I have described. What you will read there and what I have written here are the results of that kind of thinking.

You might also want to look at this:

Spoiler: My "God" Is Reason

This was written by a man named Richard Banford

"Do you know his name? Sure you do. He talks to you every day. You could not live a normal life without him. You believe in him, whether you like it or not. Unless you abandon him completely, you cannot deny he exists.

"My god is a more personal god than yours can ever be, for if you have enough sense to understand these words, my god lives within you. He lives within us all, to some degree. A heartbreaking few cannot understand him, but this is not their fault. The real tragedy is the multitudes who ignore much of his counsel, particularly when he questions your god too deeply.

"My god has been around longer than your god. He was here before the many other gods that preceded your god. Though you will likely scoff at the notion, my god was the father of your god, as he was to all gods. But that was long ago when he was young and not yet sure of himself. Though many of your god's followers try to hold him down, my god grows stronger and more independent each day.

"When your god expelled us from paradise for eating an apple, my god taught us to grow our own fruit.

"When your god forbade knowledge, demanding we live in ignorance, my god created books.

"When your god smote cities like a tantrum-prone child, my god helped to rebuild them.

"When your god insisted the world was flat, my god showed his followers it was round, to their peril at the hands of your god's followers.

"While your god watched in silence as children sickened and died, my god created medicines to make them well.

"When your god winked and nodded at slavery, my god argued passionately against it.

"While your god represses half the human race, my god considers woman to be the equal of man.

"When your god only helps those who help themselves, my god rolls up his sleeves and actually does help until your god decides to join in, and then steals all the credit.

"When your god inspired great buildings and great art, my god made them possible.

"While your god says we are all born sinners, tainted before we even draw breath, my god says we are all born innocent; a clean slate with limitless potential.

"While your god offers dubious allusions of an afterlife, my god provides for us here in this life.

"While your god makes amazing promises, but offers not a shred of proof, my god performs amazing deeds, and the proof is there to be seen by all.

"While your god demands blind faith and obsequious obedience, my god encourages questions, even about himself.

"When your god says "Thou shalt not," my god says "You can do anything."

"My god is reason. He does more in a day than your god will ever do."

There is one paragraph in the 'spoiler' that refers to sin. In it are the words, 'my god says we are all born innocent'. Well, l'm sorry, but the whole message of the Bible contradicts this statement.

If a person cannot acknowledge their sin, then they remain in sin, and die in sin.

 

[blü 2]

John the Baptist, son of Zechariah the priest, was an acknowledged prophet in lsrael, and he baptised Jesus.

Jesus fulfils the prophecies of lsaiah that tell us about the 'Anointed One'.

Isaiah 11:1,2. ' And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
And the spirit of the the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spiirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;'

Isaiah 61:1. ' The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;'

In referring himself to lsaiah 61, Jesus claims to be the Messiah. If you deny that Jesus was telling the truth, you make him a liar.

So, it's simple enough. Either Jesus was a liar, or you are (even if you don't think of it as a lie!).

So when did the Jewish priesthood anoint Jesus, exactly?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is one paragraph in the 'spoiler' that refers to sin. In it are the words, 'my god says we are all born innocent'. Well, l'm sorry, but the whole message of the Bible contradicts this statement.

Yes, I know. This is a point of departure between Christianity and humanism, one of many.

If a person cannot acknowledge their sin, then they remain in sin, and die in sin.

There is no concept of sin in humanism, which assumes the existence of a law-giving deity and an obligation to obey what are said to be its laws. Humanism replaces that with rational ethics, which assumes that man is the source of his rules to live by, and applies reason to his moral intuition to arrive at a set of don'ts and dos to facilitate those principles.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you reject the claims of theism you must have extensive knowledge of those claims.

Not really.
All I require to reject claims, about anything, is the observation that the evidence provided isn't sufficient to warrant belief. I don't require extremely detailed knowledge of the things that are being rejected.

Take for example things like homeopathy and astrology.
I don't need to be aware of every single little detail. A few main central points that don't check out with evidence is more then enough to reject the whole thing.

I'm wanting to know, in view of what John stated about liars, whether you have investigated the issue of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

It doesn't matter to the topic at hand anyway.

I can only repeat myself: a "lie" is when you state something of which you KNOW that it is false.

If your statement is the result of ignorance or misunderstanding or anything like that, then you don't KNOW it is false. Hence it is not a "lie".

A lie is when you state something that you know ain't true; that you don't even believe yourself since you know what the actual truth is.

Suppose I state that I didn't eat a pizza last night, while I did have a pizza.

If I remember that I had pizza and say anyway that I didn't, then I'm telling a lie.
If however I am absolutely convinced that I didn't have pizza and just misremember, for whatever reason, then I'm not telling a lie.



It's really not hard.
It's quite sad to see you jump through these hoops in order to try and deny this obvious simple fact.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The answer must lie in the authority given by God. For Jesus, the Law, Prophets and Writings attest to his coming. Jesus claims this authority in a demonstration of prophetic speech and miraculous power.

Neither your deity nor Jesus have authority in the lives of unbelievers. Likewise with the scripture. You seem to keep forgetting this when writing to skeptics who don't accept your basic assumptions. You seem to think that reciting the Bible and repeating Christian doctrine is meaningful to them.

Why? You know how much authority Allah, Mohammed, and the Quran have in your life. Wouldn't you consider it odd that they continued to recite scripture and dogma to you as authoritative despite you telling them that their beliefs are not yours?

How do you distinguish a true prophet from a false prophet?

If a true prophet is somebody whose message gives evidence of a divine connection, his words need to be something that men could not have written.

from God's viewpoint men who reject the truth make themselves liars - even if they themselves claim otherwise.

I'd call those who call others liars for not believing what they call truth are the liars if I use your deity's alleged definition of a liar. By mine, they're merely mistaken.

I'm asking whether you have ever checked the biblical evidence on whether Jesus is the 'Anointed One' of God.

The Bible is not evidence of anything apart from the fact that it was written. Nothing in it can be called a fact unless it is confirmed by some extrabiblical discovery. The Bible claims that both Noah and David were actual people. I believe the latter because of archeological discoveries, but not the former, for whom there is no evidence outside of the biblical story.

But to answer your question, I have. I am a former Christian, and was an apt and zealous student of scripture. I am very aware of the discrepancies between Old Testament messianic prophecy and the New Testament description of Jesus. But that is not why I don't believe that Jesus was a messiah. Even is the descriptions matched perfectly, there still wouldn't be enough evidence to believe the religious claim.

If you reject the claims of theism you must have extensive knowledge of those claims.

One only needs to know the one claim of theism and that it is unsupported to reject it.

The God of the Bible presents a very different outlook on life. Firstly, creation is not accidental. It's an act of love. Secondly, the Spirit of the Creator is present in His creation, in life itself. Love, instead of being an aspect of selfish desire, becomes a gift from God. Faith, instead of being a superstition, becomes the evidence of God's reality, and a response to love.

Once again, what difference does it make what adherents claim a deity thinks to somebody that doesn't accept the reality of that deity?

Love is not considered a selfish desire to the humanist. It's a central tenet to his moral theory, which I've recently outlined to you. That's what you have been told, but you have been misinformed. I've already mentioned to you twice how wrong you have the inner life of the humanist.

Faith is not evidence of a deity, nor a response to love. Faith is not evidence of anything apart from the will to believe without sufficient reason.

It is also not a path to truth, since anything can be believed by faith.

Faith is praised in a worldview that can only be believed by faith, but not in humanism, where it is not considered a virtue, but rather, a logical error.

Let's not forget that all who profess belief in Jesus Christ were born as unbelievers! We have the advantage of knowing both 'worlds'.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are unfamiliar with my world. You don't know what a humanist believes or experiences.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So when did the Jewish priesthood anoint Jesus, exactly?

The anointing of David, which pictures the anointing of Jesus, was carried out by the prophet Samuel, as recorded in 1 Samuel 16:13: 'Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward.'

It's worth noting that the anointing of David preceded his accession to the thrones of both Judah and Israel. Likewise, Jesus was anointed before being granted a kingdom [see Daniel 7:13,14].

 

[F1fan]

You're quite welcome to your humanist beliefs, but the prophecies of the Bible speak of a far deeper truth, lMO. Let's not forget that all who profess belief in Jesus Christ were born as unbelievers! We have the advantage of knowing both 'worlds'.

And also anyone who believes in any god does so due to biology and cultural influence, not a reasoned conclusion based on facts. So your opinion is not factual, nor defensible objectively.

The prophecies of lsaiah were in existence long before Jesus was born, yet Jesus refers to its prophecies in the synagogue in Nazareth shortly after his baptism. He quotes from lsaiah 61, claiming that the words are about the Messiah, and that he is the one 'anointed' by God to fulfil the prophecy.

Not very impressive when theology is built to match prophesy. There are no facts that suggest the Jesus myth is relevant and true.

The numerous witnesses to Jesus confirm that he not only existed but that he lived, died, and was resurrected, as described in the Bible.

Logical fallacy. Using the Bible story to prove the Bible story is true is not a valid way to argue in debate. It's called circular reasoning to say the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. So we throw it out.

The succession of believers in Jesus, as Christ, has gone unbroken since Jesus walked the earth. The evidence for this lies in the life that Christ brings, through the Spirit.

Constantine helped Christianity grow with his endorsement with his political authority and influence. This religious was consolidated and used to help unify the empire by design, not by a divine influence. And don't ignore all the killing that made spreading Christianity possible. Many wars, many dead pagans and Muslims, etc. This suggests it was more political than spreading truth. Remember, religion has ben used to impose a divine authority all through history, yet no divine was ever seen, just mortal men using religion as window dressing.

Your emphasis on 'facts' and rejection of faith means you will forever live in your sin. And if you claim you are without sin, your words betray your lies.

Irrelevant. Your religious dogma has no authority over me despite your efforts to use this attempt at tyranny. See how easy it is for mortals like yourself to feel weak and powerless and tempted to use the supposed authority of your religious dogma over others? This just proves your weakness is genuine. It proves your faith has failed you.

1 John 1:8 ' lf we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.'

Such is the spiritual perception of a God who knows the heart of man.

Irrelevant. This means nothing unless mere mortals assign it meaning first. I give it no authority or meaning, so your religious belief remains powerless.

 

[F1fan]

There is one paragraph in the 'spoiler' that refers to sin. In it are the words, 'my god says we are all born innocent'. Well, l'm sorry, but the whole message of the Bible contradicts this statement.

What makes the bible authoritative over anyone else's view of how things are? You you think your religious beliefs have authority over those who reject them as true?

If a person cannot acknowledge their sin, then they remain in sin, and die in sin.

Sin is a religious idea, not a fact. The idea of sin is not relevant to those who don't assign the word meaning. Do you understand this?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Love is not considered a selfish desire to the humanist. It's a central tenet to his moral theory, which I've recently outlined to you. That's what you have been told, but you have been misinformed. I've already mentioned to you twice how wrong you have the inner life of the humanist.

Maybe you would like to tell us more about the inner life of a humanist whose knowledge of the world is very clearly defined by his limited understanding!

The words of the Bible, which I believe to be the words of God, and evidence of God, lead a person into wisdom through the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is not a boast, but a statement of promise, and shared experience.

A humanist does not believe in prophecy because it falls outside his limited understanding. Yet, the Bible provides good evidence of prophecy. In so doing, it provides evidence that there is a spiritual power, God, who is greater than any human, or human society.

Job 38:17,18. 'Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all'.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes, I know. This is a point of departure between Christianity and humanism, one of many.



There is no concept of sin in humanism, which assumes the existence of a law-giving deity and an obligation to obey what are said to be its laws. Humanism replaces that with rational ethics, which assumes that man is the source of his rules to live by, and applies reason to his moral intuition to arrive at a set of don'ts and dos to facilitate those principles.

Good luck with that! You have a short lifetime in which to contemplate your rejection of Jesus.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Not very impressive when theology is built to match prophesy. There are no facts that suggest the Jesus myth is relevant and true.

What are you talking about?! Are you suggesting that the New Testament was a complete fabrication, and that numerous people colluded in creating a imaginary movement following a false Messiah?