Any Atheists Ever Had A "Spiritual" Experience?

[Socratic Berean]

Focusing back on the question raised, which of Strobel's works formed the impression you articulated in your first post?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Focusing back on the question raised, which of Strobel's works formed the impression you articulated in your first post?

it's only the fact that a lawyer, trained to make reasonable defenses where hearsay is inadmissible for the obvious reasons, would be drawn to something completely founded on hearsay, leaves me with little choice but to react cynically and not even be able to get past the titles. There is no "Case for Christ" or Christianity that's founded on anything but a blind faith in hearsay--something a lawyer should know better than anyone.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I'm wondering if any other atheists here have ever had a "spiritual" experience. I've put the word "spiritual" in quotes because as atheists, we don't tend to believe in spirits. But, I don't know of another word to describe the feeling or experience that I mean.

I had the opportunity to go on a brief meditation retreat yesterday. It was 6 hours of varying types of meditation, all in silence. During one of the walking meditations, I became a little irritated. There I was on my day off of work walking through the grass barefoot on a cold afternoon, unable to speak, and unable to connect with my wife who was there as well. I wanted to walk with her. Then, it occurred to me that I really was walking with her. We just were not side-by-side nor were we communicating. But we were both walking, together in a way. And it occurred to me that I was walking with everyone at the retreat, and really everyone in the world. I began to feel a deep sense of connectedness. I thought of theists who describe their "walk with god," and it occurred to me that maybe I understood what they mean. I felt that I was walking on a spiritual journey with all of humankind, and really, all life and all concepts. It was a profoundly spiritual experience.

I am an converted atheist, now a christian. But as the OT related I am sure an atheist can have spiritual experiences that range from a strange feel good feeling to what amounts to an authentic out of body experience. I went to Christianity kicking and screaming feeling much the same when I as an young boy I realized I had to put my toys away forever to score girls and and be able to play with their toys!

I think atheists and theists brains are predisposed to experience reality in slightly different ways. I am not the first to recognize atheists seem to more math and hard science orientated than theists and spiritually oriented type people. Theists can be scientists, a good example being Kurt Godel which many said was intellectually equal to Einstein. Still it seems that theists lean more towards psychology, astronomy and philosophy. Nevertheless, after many tests etc there is no proof or even good evidence to verify the idea that theists and atheists are different at a biological level. I have a hunch that one day evidence will emerge to show a fundamental difference between atheists and theists.


; {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

it's only the fact that a lawyer, trained to make reasonable defenses where hearsay is inadmissible for the obvious reasons, would be drawn to something completely founded on hearsay, leaves me with little choice but to react cynically and not even be able to get past the titles. There is no "Case for Christ" or Christianity that's founded on anything but a blind faith in hearsay--something a lawyer should know better than anyone.

Atheists want to control the type of evidence is permitted even though circumstantial evidence can get a man executed in the (un)civilized west.

Also there's much evidence for Jesus Christ and always has been. Most serious scholars have no doubt that Jesus lived and died in the middle east a couple thousand years ago. The bible is the best documented ancient document we have. When archeologists have discovered copies of biblical books the discovered copies don't deviate from the original which demonstrates the validity of the documents. This is an interesting passage from a non religious roman historian talking about Jesus; The historian name was Josephus (37 A.D.100 A.D.) recorded the history of the Jewish people in and around the middle east from 70 A.D. to 100 A.D. From his pen;

"Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the gentiles. He was the Christ and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.https://bible.org/article/archaeology-and-new-testament#text2https://bible.org/article/archaeology-and-new-testament#text2

If someone is asking for empirical proof of a miracle how would that experiment be constructed? A miracle is an process or an event that violates physical law, so how would someone go about such a thing? Empirical proof for an event that exists outside our universe? Science cant even provide empirical proof for the processes that happen beyond an event horizon of a black hole, does that mean it does not exist?

; {>

 

[Socratic Berean]

it's only the fact that a lawyer, trained to make reasonable defenses where hearsay is inadmissible for the obvious reasons, would be drawn to something completely founded on hearsay, leaves me with little choice but to react cynically and not even be able to get past the titles. There is no "Case for Christ" or Christianity that's founded on anything but a blind faith in hearsay--something a lawyer should know better than anyone.

Ok...so you have not looked at the man's actual work. Fair enough.

Have you looked into the cold case homicide detective and national level genetics researcher I cited? These are not men (or professions) who seem to give credence to hearsay either. Like Strobel, they applied the rigors of their trades to investigate the claims and reach their conclusions.

Physicist Dr. Hugh Ross is another interesting case of a reasoned and investigative approach (by an atheist scientist) that led to a radical shift in beliefs, and you are probably already familiar with the exploration and conversion of Oxford University philosophy lecturer Dr. Antony Flew (probably the most famous atheist before Richard Dawkins and the one who first described the No True Scotsman fallacy in logic (he also worked at Bletchley Park)).

Strobel is one of many aetheists who, on their own, rigorously looked at the evidence and followed the evidence where it led them. Not an approach or result I, or many, would expect of such a varied group of accomplished professionals, but there it is. Quite fascinating when you read their actual accounts, no matter what side of the conversation you are on.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Atheists want to control the type of evidence is permitted even though circumstantial evidence can get a man executed in the (un)civilized west.

In which "civilized" country can someone not be convicted by circumstantial evidence--which, BTW, is not the same thing as hearsay evidence. What evidence do atheists control and how do they control it?

Also there's much evidence for Jesus Christ and always has been.

I don't dispute that Jesus existed. In fact I know where he his bones lay until they were disturbed in 1980. There is much history in the Bible and some wisdom as well. But there's no supernatural event or divine revelation in it that isn't 100% hearsay, ancient hearsay, which is even worse.

The bible is the best documented ancient document we have.

What documentation? For the most part, we don't even know for sure who the authors were.

When archeologists have discovered copies of biblical books the discovered copies don't deviate from the original which demonstrates the validity of the documents.

Well for starters: "In the original Hebrew, the 10th Commandment prohibits taking, not coveting. The biblical Jubilee year is named for an animal’s horn and has nothing to do with jubilation. The pregnant woman in Isaiah 7:14 is never called a virgin. Psalm 23 opens with an image of God’s might and power, not shepherding."

Then throw in all the changes included with every new translation, even within one language. And of course you have to allow for the arbitrary classification of what was canonical and what wasn't. You'd think that there would only be one version of the Bible in every language. It was supposedly divinely inspired, why wasn't it divinely protected. There is a passage in both the Old and New Testaments cursing those who add to or take away from what is in the Bible. Why would those be necessary if it wasn't possible to add to or take away from the "words of God"?

This is an interesting passage from a non religious roman historian talking about Jesus; The historian name was Josephus (37 A.D.100 A.D.) recorded the history of the Jewish people in and around the middle east from 70 A.D. to 100 A.D. From his pen;

"Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the gentiles. He was the Christ and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.

Almost all (honest) scholars agree this was heavily redacted, probably by Eusebius. Fortunately, there is an Arabic version of Josephus with this non-interpolated version of that passage (the Testimonium Flavianum):
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."--Kitab al-‘Unwan written by Agapius of Manbij

If someone is asking for empirical proof of a miracle how would that experiment be constructed? A miracle is an process or an event that violates physical law, so how would someone go about such a thing? Empirical proof for an event that exists outside our universe? Science cant even provide empirical proof for the processes that happen beyond an event horizon of a black hole, does that mean it does not exist?

We have 13 billion years of evidence within this universe without the first possible supernatural event being observed. Science has amassed an enormous amount of evidence and proof that the universe operates under natural (non-supernatural) law. And the only witness to the supernatural is ancient and hearsay at best. When the believer is asked to explain, all they can say is they have faith. Faith in what? Hearsay. That's circular logic.

When you can produce a miraculous copy of the Wall Street Journal a month from now, that would be proof. If the Sun disappeared for a minute and the planets stopped orbiting for that time, that would be proof. I'm sure that an omnipotent God could think of an infinite number of ways to prove that It exists, but so far, nothing--except hearsay...corruptible, fallible, falsifiable human hearsay. You can trust your soul to that 3000 year old chain of blind faithers and charlatans, but I won't. There's not the first bit of reason to believe in any revealed religion.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

In which "civilized" country can someone not be convicted by circumstantial evidence--which, BTW, is not the same thing as hearsay evidence.

Hearsay evidence and circumstantial evidence are two completely different things.Hearsay evidence is second hand information. If a friend says he has a friend that saw john doe commit a murder and then I told the police what my friends friend sad he witnessed, all that together is hear say evidence. Circumstantial evidence is say you went to a casino's black jack table. The dealer dealt you a 20, but alas he hit 21. Lets say he did that twenty times in a row. You would have circumstantial evidence the casino was cheating. (I pasted a much more clear dictionary definition in notes. I was simply saying one can be convicted by circumstantial evidence alone but not hear say evidence.

What evidence do atheists control and how do they control it?

In debate atheists or non believers will accept only empirical evidence especially if they began losing the debate. I am sure you have seen many examples in these forums. Lee Strobel makes his case for Jesus etc relying heavily on circumstantial evidence. He has been criticized for his method when its as good a method as any IMO.

I don't dispute that Jesus existed. In fact I know where he his bones lay until they were disturbed in 1980. There is much history in the Bible and some wisdom as well. But there's no supernatural event or divine revelation in it that isn't 100% hearsay, ancient hearsay, which is even worse.

In the time of Jesus there was eyewitness accounts. That s different from hearsay. Hearsay has to pass through more than one source. In addition what kind of evidence could be produced? Answer since there was no CNN no digital cameras or cell phones etc ALL accounts were either eyewitness or hearsay. Now when a group of people witness an event and their retelling of the accounts match one has good reason to believe the event happened.

What documentation? For the most part, we don't even know for sure who the authors were.

We don't have to know who the authors are. When a book is written and parts of the book claim to cover real historical events the book can be compared to copies of it discovered hundreds of thousands of years later. If the content of the claimed factual events have not changed much its a good indication that the document is valid. For example before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures were copies. These copies were from the 9th and 10th centuries AD, and were copied/written by a group of Jewish scribes called the Massoretes. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a thousand years older than those. What is really profound is that the manuscripts are almost identical. The same. Not changed, no errors to speak of. That is because the absolute care which the well educated Jewish scribes took in an effort to accurately copy gods word ie the Scriptures. And that is thousand years with no change in some instances. With superb accuracy we can have confidence that our Scriptures faithfully represent the words given to Moses, David and the prophets.

The bible is better validated than any ancient literature. Here is a link that describes the validation process much better and in detail that is impossible to discuss in a forum setting. If you are really interested read the link with an open mind; Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)

Almost all (honest) scholars agree this was heavily redacted, probably by Eusebius. Fortunately, there is an Arabic version of Josephus with this non-interpolated version of that passage (the Testimonium Flavianum):
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."--Kitab al-‘Unwan written by Agapius of Manbij

Thanks for helping vet my case for a supernatural Jesus! The Arab version lends even more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead! The ultimate supernatural event! And what makes it even more astonishing if the author was an Arab he was most likely of the Islamic faith (if Islam had been in existence at the time of his report). Of course Muslims claim Jesus was not divine not the son of God rather he was a well respected prophet.

We have 13 billion years of evidence within this universe without the first possible supernatural event being observed. Science has amassed an enormous amount of evidence and proof that the universe operates under natural (non-supernatural) law. And the only witness to the supernatural is ancient and hearsay at best. When the believer is asked to explain, all they can say is they have faith. Faith in what? Hearsay. That's circular logic.

My friend you have been talking to fundamentalist Christians which is ok, I respect my fundamentalist brothers because we are all bound by the same spiritual blood of Jesus Christ. However, there are two CHRISTIAN versions of how the universe began to exist. One group of Christians are called Young earth creationists (basically fundamentalists) who say the bible is literally true. They say the earth is 5000 years old etc. Then there are Progressive Creationist which is what I believe. Progressive creationists claim there is scripture that supports the claim that the universe is very old, as per science. The point I was referencing is where science breaks down. That point where our physics fail is a fraction of a nanosecond after the big bang began. Science has attempted to explain this nether region but of course can not, not yet anyway. However, metaphysics does offer rational and logical explanations which is why I employ the KCA as a tool of logic observation and philosophy to show how God is the BEST explanation for what caused the big bang to begin.

When you can produce a miraculous copy of the Wall Street Journal a month from now, that would be proof. If the Sun disappeared for a minute and the planets stopped orbiting for that time, that would be proof.

I highly doubt it. God could drop from space filling the entire sky with brilliant white light and then tattoo with blue lighting bolts I AM THE LORD OF HOSTS THE HEBREW GOD' on the foreheads of every atheist on earth and guess what? The (atheist) talking heads at MSNBC with smoking foreheads would be on the air saying ITS ALL A TRICK! TRUMP DID IT! HA ha ahhh', lol ...(sorry)~

I'm sure that an omnipotent God could think of an infinite number of ways to prove that It exists, but so far, nothing--except hearsay...corruptible, fallible, falsifiable human hearsay. You can trust your soul to that 3000 year old chain of blind faithers and charlatans, but I won't. There's not the first bit of reason to believe in any revealed religion.

My soul will be an eternal creation. Is my religion the only way to become that pure being? I don't know, I would like to think everyone would be given a second chance. There is some scripture to support that wish, its wispy and nearly nonexistent, but its there. I believe the reason God does not show proof is he could have required no faith and accept evil people who would never repent. Why live this lifetime if that were the case? God might as well have made us robots with no free will. No, there is a reason we live in a material universe with temptations etc. Also, God does not interfere in our universe unless we do something that will absolutely destroy it. He has designed the universe to run on uncertainty and Chaos. Its a universe of percentages. BTW god IS NOT OMNIPOTENT in our universe! He could be but why? He is perfect in his realm where he exists outside time (called an atemporal realm). I happen to disagree there are many reasons to believe in revealed religion. I will say that I believe there are no perfect descriptions, no perfect religion. That is ok. If you believe God exists, that is a toe in the door that leads to eternal life.

; {>

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hearsay evidence and circumstantial evidence are two completely different things.Hearsay evidence is second hand information.

I'm not sure you're reading what I write, because that's what I said.

In debate atheists or non believers will accept only empirical evidence especially if they began losing the debate. I am sure you have seen many examples in these forums. Lee Strobel makes his case for Jesus etc relying heavily on circumstantial evidence. He has been criticized for his method when its as good a method as any IMO.

ALL revealed religion relies entirely on hearsay. Yeah they do try to misdirect those they're trying to convince with hearsay (especially) and confirmed biblical history--neither of which can be used as arguments for the supernatural. What's an example of his circumstantial evidence, that isn't hearsay?

In the time of Jesus there was eyewitness accounts.

Even "eyewitness" accounts are hearsay if there's no corroboration. I can tell you that God came to me and told me I am right! Without some sort of supporting evidence, that's nothing but hearsay. The only books we can say are supposed to be firsthand are Paul's letters. The only support for all his visions etc. are his word. And there's no way to cross-examine him or any witnesses, or examine any other "supporting -evidence". That's why it's so easy to claim supernatural events. Ergo, hearsay.

That s different from hearsay. Hearsay has to pass through more than one source.

Hearsay: "Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiated." Every miracle or revelation in the Bible qualifies.

In addition what kind of evidence could be produced? Answer since there was no CNN no digital cameras or cell phones etc ALL accounts were either eyewitness or hearsay. Now when a group of people witness an event and their retelling of the accounts match one has good reason to believe the event happened.

That's not even true today. Look at the Democrat Party and the media. Blatant fabrications pass before us daily, but the media drowns out opposition witnesses--or have been until recently. It's the same thing with the government (Constantine) deciding what was the actual word of God (canon), and what wasn't. As soon as it was decided, they went about destroying all the manuscripts of the opposition--AND WITH GOD ON THEIR SIDE, according to them.

We don't have to know who the authors are. When a book is written and parts of the book claim to cover real historical events the book can be compared to copies of it discovered hundreds of thousands of years later. If the content of the claimed factual events have not changed much its a good indication that the document is valid.

There are significant differences between the Massoretic texts and the Septuagint/Dead Sea Scrolls. And then there's the so-called apocrypha/gnostic texts which were summarily discarded or burned wherever possible by the proponents of the "divinely sanctified" (according to hearsay) canon.

For example before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures were copies. These copies were from the 9th and 10th centuries AD, and were copied/written by a group of Jewish scribes called the Massoretes. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a thousand years older than those. What is really profound is that the manuscripts are almost identical. The same. Not changed, no errors to speak of. That is because the absolute care which the well educated Jewish scribes took in an effort to accurately copy gods word ie the Scriptures. And that is thousand years with no change in some instances. With superb accuracy we can have confidence that our Scriptures faithfully represent the words given to Moses, David and the prophets.

Just because passages were passed down with care doesn't mean what they were passing down was accurate or divinely inspired.

The bible is better validated than any ancient literature. Here is a link that describes the validation process much better and in detail that is impossible to discuss in a forum setting. If you are really interested read the link with an open mind; Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)

None of that validates the original sources

Thanks for helping vet my case for a supernatural Jesus! The Arab version lends even more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead!

You need to notice the way Josephus reports it: "They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive." Like a good historian, he reports the hearsay as hearsay, he doesn't report it as fact--or, BTW, refer to Jesus as Christ, a very important point. And you admit that:

All Josephus reports is what was said by his followers. He doesn't write
The ultimate supernatural event!

And what makes it even more astonishing if the author was an Arab he was most likely of the Islamic faith (if Islam had been in existence at the time of his report). Of course Muslims claim Jesus was not divine not the son of God rather he was a well respected prophet.

So Muslims would have modified the passage to suit their outlook, but Christians never would?

My soul will be an eternal creation. Is my religion the only way to become that pure being? I don't know, I would like to think everyone would be given a second chance. There is some scripture to support that wish, its wispy and nearly nonexistent, but its there. I believe the reason God does not show proof is he could have required no faith and accept evil people who would never repent.

Repentance is the only path to salvation. Having faith that an animal or human can die in our place is absurd and pagan idolatry. That would be blasphemous to any Jew, then or now, as was Paul's invention of the Lord's Supper.

Why live this lifetime if that were the case? God might as well have made us robots with no free will. No, there is a reason we live in a material universe with temptations etc.

S'what I've been saying.

Also, God does not interfere in our universe unless we do something that will absolutely destroy it.

God cannot intervene for any reason, because to do so would negate our free will-- the sole reason for creating the universe in the first place.

He has designed the universe to run on uncertainty and Chaos. Its a universe of percentages. BTW god IS NOT OMNIPOTENT in our universe! He could be but why? He is perfect in his realm where he exists outside time (called an atemporal realm).

I agree.

I happen to disagree there are many reasons to believe in revealed religion.

Name one, given that divine interaction would impart knowledge of God's existence and thus undermine our free will--the reason for creation.

I will say that I believe there are no perfect descriptions, no perfect religion. That is ok. If you believe God exists, that is a toe in the door that leads to eternal life.

I only hope that there is a God. There is no basis for belief one way or the other. "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." T.J. (or blindfolded faith)

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I'm not sure you're reading what I write, because that's what I sai ALL revealed religion relies entirely on hearsay. Yeah they do try to misdirect those they're trying to convince with hearsay (especially) and confirmed biblical history--neither of which can be used as arguments for the supernatural. What's an example of his circumstantial evidence, that isn't hearsay?Even "eyewitness" accounts are hearsay if there's no corroboration. I can tell you that God came to me and told me I am right! Without some sort of supporting evidence, that's nothing but hearsay. The only books we can say are supposed to be firsthand are Paul's letters. The only support for all his visions etc. are his word. And there's no way to cross-examine him or any witnesses, or examine any other "supporting -evidence". That's why it's so easy to claim supernatural events. Ergo, hearsay.

The reason I explained the difference between hearsay and an eyewitness account was you seemed to ignore they are different and that most accounts of miracles were indeed collaborated! And to set the record straight an eyewitness account does NOT need collaboration to make it an eyewitness account!Didn't you read the eyewitness account from many who witnessed Jesus returning from the dead? There were both biblical and extra biblical examples. And there was supporting evidence, but each account is different.

Hearsay: "Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiated." Every miracle or revelation in the Bible qualifies.

WRONG. Most miracle were eyewitness accounts (seen by hundreds or sometimes) OR all had some other evidence to support claims!

That's not even true today. Look at the Democrat Party and the media. Blatant fabrications pass before us daily, but the media drowns out opposition witnesses--or have been until recently.

We have to trust normal sources, if we don't trust news sources or hundreds of people who have witnessed an event etc that is called insanity. Its like I know the truth but these thousands other people and the newspapers and the internet, TV and radio programs are all lying to me....yeah brother everyone is fabricating this stuff, and only you know tye truth!

It's the same thing with the government (Constantine) deciding what was the actual word of God (canon), and what wasn't. As soon as it was decided, they went about destroying all the manuscripts of the opposition--AND WITH GOD ON THEIR SIDE, according to them.

There were many counsels, not just one man. Most of the rejected material was obviously material that would not pass academic muster.

There are significant differences between the Massoretic texts and the Septuagint/Dead Sea Scrolls.

Yes and the church and archeological authorities are planning on including the added material to the old testament. I am sure evidence will continue to emerge that will add validity to the bible. I for one would like to see the lost books reemerge from an archeological dig.

And then there's the so-called apocrypha/Gnostic texts which were summarily discarded or burned wherever possible by the proponents of the "divinely sanctified" (according to hearsay) canon.

Just as passages from the satanic bible must be excluded from the Christian bible, Gnostic writings should not be included in the Christian bible. They don't pass academic muster and are more of a cult than a religion.

Just because passages were passed down with care doesn't mean what they were passing down was accurate or divinely inspired.

What it shows is that the scrolls were accurate because they could be compared to existing copies to vet them. Again there is no way to prove supernatural inspiration. I believe fulfilled prophecy provided evidence of revelation. I had an NDE and its documented via my medical records. I am sure the presence that spoke to me was God, so yes I believe revelation is very real. Not just from my personal experience, but it certainly does not hurt my beliefs either!

None of that validates the original sources

It doesn't? Be specific! I think you might of just think you read the material.

You need to notice the way Josephus reports it: "They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive." Like a good historian, he reports the hearsay as hearsay, he doesn't report it as fact--or, BTW, refer to Jesus as Christ, a very important point. And you admit that: Dont you know the difference between eyewitness accounts and hearsay yet?

Those were eyewitness accounts.

So Muslims would have modified the passage to suit their outlook, but Christians never would?

No, connect the dots!!! Muslims would not go against their religion (punishable with death) by claiming their holy documents were wrong ie that Jesus rose from the dead and was far more than a prophet.

Repentance is the only path to salvation. Having faith that an animal or human can die in our place is absurd and pagan idolatry. That would be blasphemous to any Jew, then or now, as was Paul's invention of the Lord's Supper.

What does that have do do with anything? When Jesus returned he ended all animal sacrifice! And you can not judge an culture by comparing theirs with your own modern standards . Sacrifice was a normal show of respect in the days of the old testament. Jesus actually outlawed it. I am beginning to wonder who has been telling you the piles of mis-truths about Christianity? Its no wonder that you have such a mistrust and a bad attitude of Christianity!

S'what I've been saying.

?

I only hope that there is a God. There is no basis for belief one way or the other. "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." T.J. (or blindfolded faith)

One translation definition from the English word 'fear' is 'respect'. No modern christian fears God or Jesus. That Christians fear God is regurgitated 1920's scopes monkey trial vitriol.

Thanks for your reply~


; { >