Why (or why not) be Christian?

[Mustardseed86]

Continuing the "Will you make it to heaven?" threads started by @VincitVeritas which have become a more wide-ranging discussion about matters of faith, Christian belief.

Hope to see you on here when the last thread runs out of space! And new posters welcome too.

We've recently been discussing the evidence for God, the soul and life after death, and debating what constitutes reliable evidence in this context.

Also some talk about whether it's accurate to say humans are 'sinful' and why/why not, some discussion of Paul and the validity of his writings and status as an apostle, how the Bible was formed (and why other writings didn't make the canon) the basis of morality/ethics, whether Jesus's message was intended for an excusively Jewish audience, the meaning of Christ (or Messiah), church tradition and different denominations, end times and probably more I've forgotten!

In Europe alone, during WW2, between 15-20 million people died. What about those people, many of them prayed as well - where was their miracle?

Yes of course I totally get that. But of course the doctors can't say anything in public. And the man who recovered didn't want any publicity. But its still talked about in my town. My point is that even people who experienced a miracle didn't mean that they accepted God as a result. So miracles aren't really that helpful in convincing people - they're either disbelieved or ignored.

I remember a mumsnetter who asked for prayers for her very sick child. One evening religious people prayed, the non religious meditated or send healing thoughts and lit candles-it was a truly powerful, collective experience. At one point the woman who was acting as "celebrant" (sorry, can't think of a better word) said we should lift the child up on prayer "so god could see her". Sadly, she died. Did we not pray hard enough? Not lift her high enough?

@Gumbear "Yes of course I totally get that. But of course the doctors can't say anything in public. And the man who recovered didn't want any publicity."

Why is it always that way? Always?

Oh dear, we're not calling on Josephus again are we? Dear dear.

Apart from the fact that Josephus wasn't born until after Jesus' supposed death, and the fact that the TF makes literally no sense in the location it was shoehorned in (it comes between two paragraphs that make no sense when they are separated!), and the fact that it is written in a completely different style to everything else he wrote, it's somewhat of a giveaway that the TF was only first noticed by, oh no, Bishop Eusebius. Yes, that Bishop Eusebius, the one who admitted to forging much of early Christian history. Who "discovered" the TF in the copy of Josephus that was passed on to him in a direct line from Origen. Yes, that Origen, who dedicated his entire life to trying to find any evidence of the existence of the Jesus character, but seems to have, strangely enough, completely missed this passage...

And as for Tacitus, well, he wasn't born until c. 55 CE, and he only mentions the existence of Christians talking about their beliefs, no mention of Jesus as a real person. Similarly with Suetonius.

It's a bit awkward to have to grasp so desperately on to dubius references from Josephus and Tacitus. Why don't you use all the references of the famous writers of the time; Epictetus, Pomponius, Mela, Martial, Juvenal, Seneca the Younger, Gallio, Seneca the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberias, Philo of Alexandria, Nicolaous of Damascus, etc. etc..

Oh, it's because none of them made so much as a hint of his existence...

No. Because others have done the same without prayer. Its not a miracle, it's just luck and modern medicine.

Indeed. If he did exist, and he may well have done, that doesn't mean he was the son of God. Which is impossible. As we all know. He was at best a mystic, at worst a raving lunatic.

Surely it doesn't matter whether Jesus is a historical figure or not? That's not the point of the discussion. Sometimes I think people spend time debating historicity as if proving that would also prove divinity.

But, according to the church, without a historic Jesus, there is no church!

If he didn't have a long weekend off for our sins, then he didn't absolve us of anything. He didn't come to bring the news of the lord to us all.

I.e., the whole foundation of the church is built on sand.

I have a few miracle questions. It has been said here that miracles are things that happen which cannot be explained so are things like SIDS a miracle? How do you determine which unexplained events are miracles and which aren't?

Also, what is the supernatural and if it is undetectable, how can it have an effect on the natural world? And how can you know this? How can you tell the difference between something that is undetectable and something that does not exist?

But what is Christianity without a Christ? An inanity?

This in its entirety. It’s a personal experiential thing. I have experience the existence of the God & His spirit to the point no one, absolutely none, can preach me out of the existence of God. The silent prayers I prayed the 03/09/2014, asking that God proved Himself and He did.

How can it be experiential AND require faith? If you had faith in 2014 you wouldn't have asked for proof and now you have proof you don't need faith.

But of course the doctors can't say anything in public.

@Gumbear Why can the doctors who witnessed something SO extraordinary and unexplainable NOT say anything?

It’s a personal experiential thing. I have experience the existence of the God & His spirit to the point no one, absolutely none, can preach me out of the existence of God. The silent prayers I prayed the 03/09/2014, asking that God proved Himself and He did.

May I ask how he proved himself?

Patient confidentiality

The person in question would never need to be named. He could be called Mr/Patient X, and his extraordinary experience could have been clearly documented, for the benefit of science and medicine, all whilst keeping patient confidentiality.

The Oxford dictionary defines a miracle as an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

So someone dying from an unknown cause isn't a miracle. It happens all the time. And it isnt welcome. In relation to SIDs we know that there are risk factors that increase the likelihood of it happening but we don't know exactly why it happens.

A miracle would be someone coming back to life after being dead for a day.

But it should definitely be reported anonymously!

I'm sure such an extraordinarily unusual medical event would always be reported so that the medical and scientific community can investigate further and either learn from it or, indeed, agree that something'magical' has happened.

The person in question would never need to be named. He could be called Mr/Patient X, and his extraordinary experience could have been clearly documented, for the benefit of science and medicine, all whilst keeping patient confidentiality.

Exactly!

Well it was clearly discussed all through the hospital and all of the staff referred to him as the miracle man. I don't think it would be ethical for them to sell the story to a newspaper. And even if they did people wouldn't believe it.

Reported where?

Well it was clearly discussed all through the hospital and all of the staff referred to him as the miracle man. I don't think it would be ethical for them to sell the story to a newspaper. And even if they did people wouldn't believe it.

Of course the medical and scientific community would be extremely interested in investigating this 'miracle' recovery!!

And there is nothing unethical about it either because no money would be involved - it would simply be shared to further our understanding of medicine.