Are you a Christian?

[Parthelan]

Who really Is the Rock-Mass?

Did Jesus mean that Peter was the rock-mass upon which Jesus would build his congregation?

No. Consider three reasons why we may be certain on this point.

First, the other apostles were present, and they drew no such meaning from Jesus' words. If Jesus gave Peter primacy in front of them all, then why did they later argue repeatedly over which one of them seemed to be greatest? (Mark 9:33-35; Luke 22:24-26)

Second, the apostle Paul later showed that the rock-mass was, not Peter, but Jesus Christ. (1*Corinthians 3:11; 10:4)

Third, decades later Peter himself showed that he did not think that he was the rock-mass. Rather, he wrote that Jesus was the long-foretold "foundation cornerstone" chosen by God himself.-1*Peter 2:4-8.

Some people still, insist that since Peter's name means "Rock," Jesus was identifying him as the rock-mass. In fact, though, Peter's name is not a synonym for the word "rock-mass" used in the same verse.

Peter's name means "A Piece of Rock," and it is a masculine noun; the word rendered "rock-mass" is a feminine noun.

How, then, are Jesus' words to be understood?

In effect, he was saying to Peter: "You, the one I called Peter, or Rock, have discerned the true identity of the 'rock-mass,' the Christ, who will serve as the foundation of the Christian congregation.

You are doing what every self appointed pastor Ive ever met does in the face of the written historical records.
What you have just written is YOUR interpretation - YOUR personal interpretation.
I've given you some of the early church fathers and their writings.

What you say and preach is NOT what they taught and preached.

I will stick with THEM. They were there at the time, and have the continuous unbroken lineage.

YOUR personal interpretation of the scriptures is just that, YOURS, and this is the reason we have something like 40,000 or more christian churches all contradicting each other in matters of faith and doctrine.

I stick with the Church Fathers. They taught the truth, and they were slaughtered for it.

I spent many years in the desert. The smorgosborg of pick n mix christian churhes just did my head in. The Spirit does not contradict. So some or all must be wrong.
And then I went back to the Church Fathers, to the historical documents, to the written teachings.
And THAT has put me on the straight and narrow.

 

[Cornish Steve]

There is the flaw in your logic. You have no proof those things happened the way you believe them to.

There is no proof, you are right. The best we can do is consider the evidence available, and no one can be persuaded by evidence alone. Combined with history and personal experience, we're certainly talking about a reasonable conclusion - not the "fairy story" that modern-day atheists love to portray. In the end, Christians are what they are because they find themselves involved in a personal relationship with a 'person'. Just because we can't see the wind doesn't mean it's not there. Similarly, the presence of God can be very real.

I admit, the Daniel prophecy is pretty eery, how he managed to predict 490 years in advance and land it on the day. That's pretty perfect. A bit too perfect to sit well with any skeptic. From the little digging around I did, it seems the book of Daniel was written between (estimated) 100BC and 20AD. Would you not concede that it's more plausible the events happened and then someone invented a backstory that made Daniel look awesome?

Since we don't have a time machine, we must rely on good research and scholarship. The writings of Daniel, for example, were very prevalent in the Dead Sea scrolls, which indicates that the book was written several centuries BC. No reputable scholar believes it was written after the fact. It's not just the age of manuscripts but the language and idioms in the writing.

You admit yourself that no being before or since has resurrected themselves after death. You also claim no other religions prophecies have been fulfilled and the only evidence you have that your religion is the exception is it's own literature, written after the fact by people who weren't in attendance when these things happened.

Some of the writers were present at the time. Others documented eye-witness accounts. One such writer was a physician with an eye to detail.

The Christian faith is nothing without the resurrection. To claim a relationship with someone whose body is rotting somewhere in a grave would be sheer madness. But, if this person was resurrected, and if millions throughout history were martyred for a reason, then his claims bear looking into.

It wouldn't bother me so much if it's followers weren't so quick to dismiss everyone else equally outrageous claims. Take Scientology, I bet you dismiss that out of hand. Crazy old sci-fi writer who lived on a boat tells a story about an alien who flew through space to earth and dropped souls into volcano's. But it has it's followers and they'll dismiss your book just as quick as you will dismiss theirs.

But they are nutters, right? Well that is what you look like to everyone else who doesn't follow your particular book.

Would you claim that Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Ernest Rutherford, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and others were nutters? All were sincere Christians, and some wrote more books about their faith than about their science.

From the point of view of writings or philosophy, one person's view is as valid as another. The followers of some faiths gain prominence simply because they exist in greater numbers or shout the loudest. I'm not going to dismiss anyone as nutters. At least they have the sense to think long and hard about death before it happens. With all the distractions in modern life, not everyone does this. As for me, my mind is forever focused on one thing: the person who came back to life after a public crucifixion. If it's true, it changes everything.

Maybe I can quote from my favourite poet, John Harris. A 19th century tin miner, he's regarded as one of Cornwall's greatest and termed by some our national bard.

Even like the mariner upon the plank,
Whose bark has founder'd and whose mates are drown'd,
Not heeding the full moon on the cloud's crest,
Or the bright stars above him, but whose eyes
Are rivetted on the approaching ship,
Steering to save him, so would I behold
The Man of Sorrows crucified for me.

 

[cjd]

Yes, sir.

Yes but no but. You didn't answer the question. You have given no explanation why Christians are able to interpret God's word in virtually any way they like. Talk of patience, and time and self-sacrafice is just theological waffle. Meanwhile the glaringly obvious reason you guys fight over it - often literally - is because it's man made. (Even you don't doubt that - not a single word of any of the bible is claimed to be written by any god.)

I'm not joking.

The standard of proof in a criminal court is 'beyond reasonable doubt' (or 'such that you are sure' if you prefer.) Given that even you Christians dispute the bible let alone those that believe in other Gods and none, you'd be laughed out of court before being heard.

 

[dagr]

I don't think being a Christian (or believing in any other major religion) makes you automatically a nutter. In fact, I can see why it is such a nice proposition, but for me personally it's just a construct. The nutter aspect only comes out when religious justification pushes up against conflictual evidence or spouts unjustified claims into the real-world.

As for citing past luminaries, no non-believer would even get into university or get a paper-round as a job if his/her beliefs were known. (I'm not saying past luminaries didn't really believe, just that it was totally one-sided until very recently, and that by default, any establishment figure, no matter the field, had to be a Christian in the western world until about 100 years ago).

In the west, we are living in very unusual times, where people are free not to believe in any one god or ideology, or indeed are free to believe in alternative gods, and this is very rare in the history of civilisation. Science is laying truths bare, asking new questions without giving immediate or any answers, and keeping people in restless doubt. It is NOT providing any solace, comfort or overall guide (it's not meant to), apart from supplying new knowledge and new insights on an intellectual level, not a spiritual level, and this in an anarchic fashion. That's why I can see how something like Christianity would be appealing.

I'm unsure if the unusual current state, which is only really about 50 years old, can hold out for a long time, or whether it will be submerged by a forced return to an authoritative spiritual and intellectual ideology. We'll have to wait and see.

Science is not an ideology, although some try to adapt it as such. It also has the problem of often being counter-intuitive, evermore complex, perceived as inhumane and hence easily soliciting mistrust from the average person in the street, something which the construct of religion avoids, and indeed panders to.

 

[Jeff Knows]

There is no proof, you are right. The best we can do is consider the evidence available, and no one can be persuaded by evidence alone. Combined with history and personal experience, we're certainly talking about a reasonable conclusion - not the "fairy story" that modern-day atheists love to portray. In the end, Christians are what they are because they find themselves involved in a personal relationship with a 'person'. Just because we can't see the wind doesn't mean it's not there. Similarly, the presence of God can be very real.

You are mistaken. Evidence is the only thing that can persuade an atheist. Personal experience is next to useless, personal belief equally so. It has no effect on the truth and if you are going to continue to judge what is true and false based on what people believe to be true or false you are going to be wrong a hell of a lot.

It is in no way a reasonable conclusion. If an omnipotent caring being existed, why do we still have great natural suffering in the world? Either it's not a caring being or it doesn't exist.

You are in a personal relationship with a person you cannot see? Ok. I have nothing to say on that, it speaks for itself.

Since we don't have a time machine, we must rely on good research and scholarship. The writings of Daniel, for example, were very prevalent in the Dead Sea scrolls, which indicates that the book was written several centuries BC. No reputable scholar believes it was written after the fact. It's not just the age of manuscripts but the language and idioms in the writing.

No reputable scholar? Show me some of these unscrupulous researchers that you have dismissed because they contradict your world view.

Some of the writers were present at the time. Others documented eye-witness accounts. One such writer was a physician with an eye to detail.

The Christian faith is nothing without the resurrection. To claim a relationship with someone whose body is rotting somewhere in a grave would be sheer madness. But, if this person was resurrected, and if millions throughout history were martyred for a reason, then his claims bear looking into.

Exactly. The entire faith is hinged on an event that probably didn't happen. An event so unlikely yet you live your life answering to a being you don't know is there, living by it's rules, fearing it's punishments all for what? Just in case the impossible happened.

Don't you think that's absurd? I do. Many Christians think it's absurd when you just change the word God to 'Allah'.

Would you claim that Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Ernest Rutherford, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and others were nutters? All were sincere Christians, and some wrote more books about their faith than about their science.

No, because their faith stopped where their knowledge began. That Apple didn't hit Newton on the head and he went "Oh, God did it". He questioned his assumptions and he arrived at a working theory. It's called Science.

Not many people take issue with the simple point of 'God exists'. It's mere speculation either way and it's ridiculous to take offense to that. What is offensive is optionally dismissing fact in favour of the stories surrounding God.

There is absolutely no evidence for the existance of God. There are stories, sure. Stories and opinion do not constitute evidence and evidence is required to accept a theory.

From the point of view of writings or philosophy, one person's view is as valid as another. The followers of some faiths gain prominence simply because they exist in greater numbers or shout the loudest. I'm not going to dismiss anyone as nutters. At least they have the sense to think long and hard about death before it happens. With all the distractions in modern life, not everyone does this. As for me, my mind is forever focused on one thing: the person who came back to life after a public crucifixion. If it's true, it changes everything.

You are betting your eternal life on a statistical impossibility. In doing so you are offering yourself up to a clearly negligent and sometimes downright evil creature. It's no better than saying

"IF it turns out to be true Black people are not the same species as Whites I will be a slave. So I may aswell go start being a slave now."

It's not a reasonable choice to make. It's a simple logic test of yes or no. You wrote 'I am a fish' 400 times, did a funny little dance and fainted.

 

[Parthelan]

I'm having trouble following your arguement in places - on the one hand you seem to be saying God does not exist, full stop, as there's not a shred of evidence for it, and on the other you seem to be saying he does exist but he's negligent and evil :|

 

[Parthelan]

If an omnipotent caring being existed, why do we still have great natural suffering in the world? Either it's not a caring being or it doesn't exist.

We have Free will. It's a killer at times !!!

 

[Jeff Knows]

I'm having trouble following your arguement in places - on the one hand you seem to be saying God does not exist, full stop, as there's not a shred of evidence for it, and on the other you seem to be saying he does exist but he's negligent and evil :|

I personally believe that no God of any kind exists. But I can't prove that. Just like it can't be proven it does. There very well could be a being outside our knowledge who controls everything but every step forward we make in science pushes that God further away.

If God exists in the way Christianity explains then he is a negligent or evil God. The abrahamic religions describe God as an all-caring being in full control of the universe. Great suffering still happens. Suffering not related to the free will of man. Atomic Bombs, sure, that's the free will of man inflicting pain. Tsunami's killing thousands of people? That's an act of God. That God, is an arse

 

[Parthelan]

That's an act of God. That God, is an arse

So what you seem to be saying is that the unimaginable complexity of the physics and chemistry thats needed to make the oceans work, the air circulate, the winds generate, the rains fall, the landscapes form and evolve such that an unbelievable diversity of life can be sustained, is the work of nature, of evolution, of randomness ...... but when that very randomness causes a flood or tsunami, then thats the work of an evil god :|

Edit - just reread what you wrote - is it your saying if there was a God, nothing bad would ever happen to us concerning the natural world as God would prevent it??

 

[Jeff Knows]

So what you seem to be saying is that the unimaginable complexity of the physics and chemistry thats needed to make the oceans work, the air circulate, the winds generate, the rains fall, the landscapes form and evolve such that an unbelievable diversity of life can be sustained, is the work of nature, of evolution, of randomness ...... but when that very randomness causes a flood or tsunami, then thats the work of an evil god :|

Edit - just reread what you wrote - is it your saying if there was a God, nothing bad would ever happen to us concerning the natural world as God would prevent it??

What? No. I completely accept that the chaos of the universe occasionally causes great suffering to us living beings who happen to be clinging to this particular space rock.

If God exists in the way the Christian bible describes him (IE the God that millions of people accept into their life and thank for good events), then naturally caused suffering on the scale we see should not happen. An all caring and all powerful God who allows Tsunami's to happen is not all caring or is not all powerful or is simply not.

Isn't the message of Christianity to stop suffering if it is within your power to do so? Why would God not follow his own message and stop the suffering of the beings he created and loves.. unless he couldn't.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Yes but no but. You didn't answer the question. You have given no explanation why Christians are able to interpret God's word in virtually any way they like. Talk of patience, and time and self-sacrafice is just theological waffle. Meanwhile the glaringly obvious reason you guys fight over it - often literally - is because it's man made. (Even you don't doubt that - not a single word of any of the bible is claimed to be written by any god.)

Then I missed the gist of your question.

In science, there is 'one correct answer', but it takes a while to uncover it. What are models or hypotheses today may become accepted theory over time - or they may have to be cast aside in light of new information. While some details are agreed by all, nasty battles are played out in journals as new ideas are sounded and promoted. Whereas the ultimate goal is to get at the truth, you wouldn't believe that sometimes; it seems that egos and power and personal pride and the need for funding get in the way. Too often, the data is 'adapted' to fit someone's ideas. I've seen this happen.

It's no different when it comes to interpreting the Bible. It's not true to say that we interpret it in any way we like. There is just one correct interpretation, and it's the intended meaning of the author. There are no hidden or secret messages, just what was meant. But it's very difficult to get at this. When translating from one language to another, there aren't always exact word comparisons. A language may be ambiguous on some points. Turns of phrase are often missed and taken literally. Frankly, we don't know the meaning of some words in very ancient texts. Plus, there's always the possibility that some words or phrases were copied wrongly by the early scribes. It's the original manuscripts that we believe to be inspired.

Just as with science, egos are at work. Whereas the ultimate goal is to get at the truth, you wouldn't believe that sometimes; it seems that egos and power and personal pride and the need for funding get in the way. Too often, the data is 'adapted' to fit someone's ideas. In no way does this take away from the veracity of the document. Quite the contrary, in fact. It's open to all, and there are no secrets to hide.

 

[Cornish Steve]

As for citing past luminaries, no non-believer would even get into university or get a paper-round as a job if his/her beliefs were known. (I'm not saying past luminaries didn't really believe, just that it was totally one-sided until very recently, and that by default, any establishment figure, no matter the field, had to be a Christian in the western world until about 100 years ago).

Once again, this is very demeaning - to speak down to some of the greatest people who ever lived. Do you think they would have written so many books about their faith if it was a mere formality to get into university? Both Newton and Pascal wrote more books about their faith than they did about science. It was part of their core. I recommend you read biographies of some of these people. Take Faraday, for example. He belonged to quite a fundamentalist sect and was faithful to it all his life. It drove many of the important decisions he made in life. Similarly, Maxwell was a strong Christian believer. These intellectual giants went about their work because they believed in a God of order and predictability, and they wanted to get to know more about the person by learning about his creation.

It's amazing that, in our current age, we believe we're somehow wiser than these giants of science and, when it comes to personal belief, they were either ignorant or willfully deceptive - just to fit our own personal philosophy of life.

 

[Cornish Steve]

You are betting your eternal life on a statistical impossibility. In doing so you are offering yourself up to a clearly negligent and sometimes downright evil creature.

I'm quite comfortable with that, and I really don't care how others misconstrue my conclusion. On the other hand, you're betting your destiny on the assumption that death is final and we will not be held accountable for our actions in life. Are you 100 percent sure of this? You ought to be, because it one of the most important decisions you'll ever make - and, frankly, the opinions of others will count for squat. Many of the greatest people in history came to the same conclusion as I. Other famous people in history came to the same conclusion as you. One day, without doubt, we'll learn the implications of these decisions.

 

[cjd]

It's no different when it comes to interpreting the Bible. It's not true to say that we interpret it in any way we like. There is just one correct interpretation, and it's the intended meaning of the author. There are no hidden or secret messages, just what was meant. But it's very difficult to get at this. When translating from one language to another, there aren't always exact word comparisons. A language may be ambiguous on some points. Turns of phrase are often missed and taken literally. Frankly, we don't know the meaning of some words in very ancient texts. Plus, there's always the possibility that some words or phrases were copied wrongly by the early scribes. It's the original manuscripts that we believe to be inspired.

That's no explanation of anything but man's problems with being human. Your God is human Steve, ain't nothing supernatural or even inspired about him - just people doing what people do, telling stories to make them feel better or more powerful or both.

If a god wanted to get his message across - he would, and there would be no doubt about it. Obviously.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Isn't the message of Christianity to stop suffering if it is within your power to do so? Why would God not follow his own message and stop the suffering of the beings he created and loves.. unless he couldn't.

There are several important points here:

1) When you read the Ten Commandments, for example, view them as a description of a person, not just a prescription for living. It sheds considerable light on the personality of God - something you appear to be questioning. Incidentally, the person Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the law - the complete picture compared to the 'pointillist' law.

2) One of the enigmas of life is 'agape love' - the completely selfless love that contradicts all naturalistic explanations of life. That love is only valid because we can choose it. To choose it, there must be alternatives to avoid. You may claim that this means that 'evil' will always exist, but you're assuming that 'time' will always exist as we face it. From the perspective of physics, there's no reason at all why we should be locked to an "arrow of time".

3) It's during periods of darkness that light shines the brightest. When famine becomes harsh, that's when donors give sacrificially to help, or spend time helping with relief agencies. This happens, I might add, even though the survival of others hurts our 'selfish gene'. We do so because something within us spurs us to it. Our conscience is another little reminder that we're made in the image of God.

4) You speak as if our life on earth is the be all and end all. In another discussion at these forums, the assumption is that long life is the ultimate goal. Well, it's not! It's what we do during our years on earth that really matter. Longevity means little. So what did you and I do when the tsunami hit Asia? This is the more important question.

 

[dagr]

Once again, this is very demeaning - to speak down to some of the greatest people who ever lived. Do you think they would have written so many books about their faith if it was a mere formality to get into university? Both Newton and Pascal wrote more books about their faith than they did about science. It was part of their core. I recommend you read biographies of some of these people. Take Faraday, for example. He belonged to quite a fundamentalist sect and was faithful to it all his life. It drove many of the important decisions he made in life. Similarly, Maxwell was a strong Christian believer. These intellectual giants went about their work because they believed in a God of order and predictability, and they wanted to get to know more about the person by learning about his creation.

As I said in the text you quoted from me, I am not claiming those great scientists didn't actually believe in God. I am saying the best scientists, in fact, any scientists from that age had to be believers. Any potential rival great scientist who was a non-believer didn't have the right to exist back then.

It's amazing that, in our current age, we believe we're somehow wiser than these giants of science and, when it comes to personal belief, they were either ignorant or willfully deceptive - just to fit our own personal philosophy of life.

Care to explain then how, in these current times with true freedom of belief, why there are so many atheist scientists?

PS: I have read a fair bit about Newton. Great mathematician & scientist, but a nasty man. I'm sure god only played a part in his good side.

 

[Cornish Steve]

That's no explanation of anything but man's problems with being human. Your God is human Steve, ain't nothing supernatural or even inspired about him - just people doing what people do, telling stories to make them feel better or more powerful or both.

If a god wanted to get his message across - he would, and there would be no doubt about it. Obviously.

One of the most important principles in life is "they have eyes but will not see; they have ears but will not hear". Different people view the same details of our existence and come to radically different conclusions. For me, the evidence is striking, the details in personal life are affirming, and the presence of God, especially as I look back on life, is compelling - and I'd say you cannot see the wood for the trees. This argument has raged for centuries, and there's nothing new to change it.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Care to explain then how, in these current times with true freedom of belief, why there are so many atheist scientists?

When you take away those who simply conform to the prevailing view, I'd say the numbers are about the same today. It's ironic: In the West, atheists are becoming more vocal. In China, a nation built on atheism and that has tried to eliminate all 'religions', the numbers of Christians is staggering and continuing to grow. Similarly, the number of Christians in Korea just one hundred years ago could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Today, they represent well over one-third of the population of South Korea. You can't just look at our country; you must consider the world.

You've already dismissed some of the greatest minds from history. Are you now going to dismiss millions of Asians as somehow less perceptive? If so, you're rapidly running out of people to put down.

 

[dagr]

When you take away those who simply conform to the prevailing view, I'd say the numbers are about the same today. It's ironic: In the West, atheists are becoming more vocal. In China, a nation built on atheism and that has tried to eliminate all 'religions', the numbers of Christians is staggering and continuing to grow. Similarly, the number of Christians in Korea just one hundred years ago could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Today, they represent well over one-third of the population of South Korea. You can't just look at our country; you must consider the world.

In the case of the rise of western religion in China & Korea, you'll find that it's living proof of how marketing works, hard-core marketing at that. Take a drive through the Korean countryside at night and count the neon crosses.

As I said before, many people (probably the majority) will always be drawn to religions and other belief systems that cater to the spiritual side of humanity. But it is only very recently that this was not a "must". We'll see if it's allowed to prevail.

 

[dagr]

...

You've already dismissed some of the greatest minds from history. Are you now going to dismiss millions of Asians as somehow less perceptive? If so, you're rapidly running out of people to put down.

Hmmmm, purposefully misrepresenting my words. I don't think that's very Christian.

PS: Don't forget Charles Darwin in your list of great scientists. He was a believer too, but somehow seems to be missed out of many christians' lists of great people. Obviously an oversight.

 

[Cornish Steve]

In the case of the rise of western religion in China & Korea, you'll find that it's living proof of how marketing works, hard-core marketing at that. Take a drive through the Korean countryside at night and count the neon crosses.

As I said before, many people (probably the majority) will always be drawn to religions and other belief systems that cater to the spiritual side of humanity. But it is only very recently that this was not a "must". We'll see if it's allowed to prevail.

Once again, I see the facts, and you see the same facts. To me, hundreds of millions of Christians in countries where there used to be none means there are more Christians in the world. To you, they are simply gullible individuals who respond to marketing - because they don't have the intellectual smarts that you have - and by ignoring them you can claim that the number of atheists is increasing. "You have eyes, but you cannot see." You'll explain everything away rather than take time to look into the details. What ever happened to the 'scientific method', which casts aside presuppositions?

 

[Cornish Steve]

Hmmmm, purposefully misrepresenting my words. I don't think that's very Christian.

PS: Don't forget Charles Darwin in your list of great scientists. He was a believer too, but somehow seems to be missed out of many christians' lists of great people. Obviously an oversight.

What about Mendel? What about Francis Collins, head of the human genome project? Once again, you're looking for data to match your starting assumption. Very unscientific!

 

[dagr]

What about Mendel? What about Francis Collins, head of the human genome project? Once again, you're looking for data to match your starting assumption. Very unscientific!

I'm afraid you're the one with faith and unscientific announcements, taking anecdotal evidence (one person, Collins) and holding it up as proof. Survey of around 250 US scientists (members of NAS), with comparison of data from similar surveys taken years before:

The results were as follows (figures in %):

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief ______ 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief ______ 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism _____ 20.9 17 20.8

Nature review

 

[dagr]

Once again, I see the facts, and you see the same facts. To me, hundreds of millions of Christians in countries where there used to be none means there are more Christians in the world. To you, they are simply gullible individuals who respond to marketing - because they don't have the intellectual smarts that you have - and by ignoring them you can claim that the number of atheists is increasing. "You have eyes, but you cannot see." You'll explain everything away rather than take time to look into the details. What ever happened to the 'scientific method', which casts aside presuppositions?

Just to be clear, I never said, anywhere, the total number of believers was decreasing. I said the number of atheists has risen within the scientific ranks compared to way back when they couldn't exist, at least not overtly.

Beyond scientists, it doesn't take much research that see that the main, traditional religion of almost all western countries has declined in terms of believers, and is rising in new "virgin" territories where there is an active campaign to convert people to the church. (Nothing wrong with marketing, it works on all of us).

I think that, over time, an equilibrium will be found, irrespective of the geographical location, with the % of believers to non-believers being roughly the same for a given set of conditions (religion's "power" & role, education levels, poverty, etc.), and that most people will continue to define themselves as believers, whether they go to church or not (but this is just my personal speculation on it).

 

[Cornish Steve]

Jis rising in new "virgin" territories where there is an active campaign to convert people to the church.

No marketing goes on in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and so on. The number of Christians in aggressive Islamic countries, however, is on the rise. Some of the stories from there are quite interesting - with some coming to their faith as a result of vivid dreams. For sure, where life is free, individuals carry the message. In places that are not free, the source can be quite unusual.

You're also assuming that all things are equal. Nonetheless, the number of atheists is rising in countries where the mass media has been heavily influenced by atheistic thought, and you pay no price for believing. In China, the Middle East, and elsewhere, the media and the government are controlled by forces that literally hate Christians and the Christian faith. To become a Christian believer means instant poverty, rejection, alienation, torture, imprisonment, and even death. Marketing does not explain this. Why choose such a life?

 

[cjd]

The highest conversion group in the UK is from Christian to Muslim and it's mostly women. So were does that get you?

Surge in Britons converting to Islam

White women lead a wave of Britons embracing Islam, with a 50 per cent rise in converts living in this country in a decade according to a new report.

A survey of 122 converts last year showed 56% were white British

The number of converts to Islam may have risen from around 60,000 in 2001 to up to 100,000, according to estimates in a report for the Faith Matters organisation.

A study by Kevin Brice, of Swansea University, on behalf of Faith Matters, found 5,200 people converted to Islam in the UK last year.

A survey of 122 converts last year showed 56% were white British, with women making up 62% of respondents. The average age at conversion was just over 27.

http://faith-matters.org/images/sto...y-a-report-on-converts-to-islam-in-the-uk.pdf

 

[Cornish Steve]

Ah, yes. A rise of 40,000 people. So I suppose that supersedes the millions in China who became Christians during that time. Goodness me: The Monster Raving Loony Party used to win more than 40,000 votes around the country. "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Having said that, numbers can be deceptive. The majority does not necessarily have a monopoly on truth.

 

[Top Hat]

The majority does not necessarily have a monopoly on truth.

Spot on.

Every person on earth could believe the same thing, but it still could be wrong.

The relative numbers of believers of different faiths does not add in any way to the truth of that faith.

 

[dagr]

No marketing goes on in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and so on. The number of Christians in aggressive Islamic countries, however, is on the rise. Some of the stories from there are quite interesting - with some coming to their faith as a result of vivid dreams. For sure, where life is free, individuals carry the message. In places that are not free, the source can be quite unusual.

I agree, word-of-mouth also works, no mystery there. I am not surprised that people get faith through seemingly unfathomable means (see below).

You're also assuming that all things are equal. Nonetheless, the number of atheists is rising in countries where the mass media has been heavily influenced by atheistic thought, and you pay no price for believing.

You say "mass media has been heavily influenced by atheistic thought". Fair enough. But I prefer "mass media has at last given a voice to atheistic thought". Even in the UK today, we still have regular hours of religious programming on state TV & radio. I think as close as the 1920s, people were imprisoned for blasphemy in the UK, and even I at a state school had to say the Lord's prayer every single day. So I don't think it's too wrong to say that Christianity in the UK is punching above its weight, although I realise that going through cold turkey is difficult.

In China, the Middle East, and elsewhere, the media and the government are controlled by forces that literally hate Christians and the Christian faith. To become a Christian believer means instant poverty, rejection, alienation, torture, imprisonment, and even death. Marketing does not explain this. Why choose such a life?

Personally, I am not at all mystified by people's choice of religious faith, as stated previously, where I still reckon a majority of people will remain in faith. This is to do with the spiritual side of humans and it's a journey people go on towards something. For me, people losing faith and becoming agnostic or atheistic is neither a return journey back from faith nor a similar journey towards faith but in a different direction. I think the journey towards faith is an adventure and is spiritually guided/driven by that part of the human psyche. That's why people are willing to make seemingly irrational moves, despite the material and physical risks.

The journey to, or realisation of, atheism by comparison is empty, boring, and almost depressing. That's why I don't try to "convert" believers out of their faith, and why I sometimes get a bit worried by someone rejecting faith and turning to science instead, where science is seen as a substitute for faith. Science offers nothing for the spiritual needs of humans. Intellectual side, yes.

I'd describe myself as an atheist atheist, and not really an anti-theist atheist. I only become anti-theist in reaction to religion when it starts to tread on political, scientific and other worldly non-spiritual processes.

 

[Top Hat]

Q. If in the nearish future we got a signal from space from intelligent aliens.

And contained within that signal came a description of their religion, and that religion was a perfect fit to one of the following:
A) Christian
B) Islamic
C) Something totally unlike any religion on earth.

How would it affect your faith?

For myself, as an atheist I would expect (C)
But if it was A or B. I would definately have to reexamine my beliefs

 

[Jeff Knows]

Ah, yes. A rise of 40,000 people. So I suppose that supersedes the millions in China who became Christians during that time.

I don't think there is enough data to make the claim that they became Christians. As you have stated for many decades Christianity, and all religion, was oppressed. Just because the statistics show a rise in Christianity does not mean that rise is down to new converts. I would argue it's more plausible those Christians have always been there, just reluctant to openly admit their faith.

I would also argue that there must be a certain amount of de-facto conversion. A certain percentage of the population of any country will be converting all the time for any given reason. It doesn't have to have anything to do with marketing or 'truth' or freedom or anything like that. In the UK that percentage, to Islam, is 0.06%. In China that represents 800,000 people. So it's not exactly a big deal when 'millions' of people do anything in China. Millions of people isn't even close to 1% of the population.

 

[cjd]

More selectivity Steve?

It seems that overall, Christianity is the slowest growing religion with growth being less than population growth.

Trends in annual growth of adherence
1970-1985.................1990-2000.....................2000-2005
3.65% - Bahá'í Faith.....2.65% - Zoroastrianism...1.84% - Islam
2.74% - Islam.............2.28% - Bahá'í Faith........1.70% - Bahá'í Faith
2.34% - Hinduism.........2.13% - Islam...............1.62% - Sikhism
1.67% - Buddhism........1.87% - Sikhism............1.57% - Hinduism
1.64% - Christianity......1.69% - Hinduism..........1.32% - Christianity
1.09% - Judaism..........1.36% - Christianity
.................................1.09% - Buddhism

The annual growth in the world population over the same period is 1.41%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

Not that any of this matters a hoot.

 

[Jeff Knows]

Q. If in the nearish future we got a signal from space from intelligent aliens.

And contained within that signal came a description of their religion, and that religion was a perfect fit to one of the following:
A) Christian
B) Islamic
C) Something totally unlike any religion on earth.

How would it affect your faith?

For myself, as an atheist I would expect (C)
But if it was A or B. I would definately have to reexamine my beliefs

It depends how perfect you mean by perfect.

A near exact match? Well that would be something, certainly.

However I can certainly see how any civilization would come to similar conclusions throughout their history. If they were sentient and similar to us in their thought patterns then it's highly likely their civilization would have went through a similar answer seeking process we have. It's part of the definition of being sentient to question your own existance and I would argue it's highly likely for any pre-technology society to answer that question with some kind of faith that stuck around and still informs their civilizeation.

OR they have always been completely atheistic in nature and never questioned it and we are the odd ones with god delusions OR we are alone in the universe in our ability to imagine a god figure. Who the hell knows.

 

[Jeff Knows]

an atheist atheist

Hah, you remind me (Yet again) of the great Douglas Adams. When asked he would refer to himself as a Militant Atheist. Not because he was one but because he felt it got the point across better and would stop people asking him if he really meant Agnostic.

 

[Cornish Steve]

That's why I don't try to "convert" believers out of their faith, and why I sometimes get a bit worried by someone rejecting faith and turning to science instead

Science is neutral and it neither supports nor denies any belief system - atheist, Christian, or any other. This is why individuals of every religious (or non-religious) persuasion have been leaders in the field of science.

What saddens me very much is the wedge that's been driven, in recent years, between science and faith. 'Christian culture' is much to blame, and I resent their actions on this. The popular media is just as much to blame by linking science and speculation and philosophy together to form a godless world-view. From my perspective, science has been hijacked by the one and rejected by the other. Throughout history, science and faith have been two sides of the same coin. I get rather frustrated when I hear of anyone suggesting that science is an alternative to faith: It is not.

Unfortunately, that wedge has created a tear that seems to feed upon itself. When some present science as an alternative, too many Christians respond by rejecting science - which is stupid. When they do this, atheists and naturalists in general embrace science all the more, and add their own speculative ideas to it. That in turn alienates Christians still more, and so it goes on. For someone like me, with a strong commitment to science and yet a Christian to the core, I feel obliged to stitch up that tear - but it's a difficult task (not because the two are incompatible, but because of current societal pressure). It alienates me from both sides, I can tell you. So be it.

 

[Jeff Knows]

I agree with you that Science isn't the alternative to Faith and it's pretty absurd they ever enter the same discussion. However ultimately, I don't see any need for Faith.

I think of Faith like Science's hat. Science is the embodyment of everything we can and do know. Faith is the little bit on top that tries to come up with answers for everything we don't or can't know.

Over time, Science grows some more hair on it's head and pushes into the boundaries previously occupied by Faith. Day after day a little bit is pushed further into the realm of knowledge and faith never pushes back. Almost always what Faith thought about that bit of knowledge turns out to be wrong when Science grows into it. (Wearing a Condom makes the spread of HIV worse is a particularly absurd and abusive example of this)

Personally, I don't see why Science needs a hat. I'm happy with my hair flapping about in the wind not knowing what's above it.

 

[cjd]

Throughout history, science and faith have been two sides of the same coin.

Science has always caused huge problems for religion - Darwin all but destroyed primitive biblical beliefs in the West and religion had to change massively to survive it. More usually whenever science contradicted religion in the past, science got burnt for heresy.

The idea of non overlapping magisteria is hokum.

I get rather frustrated when I hear of anyone suggesting that science is an alternative to faith: It is not.

That's fair enough, it isn't. Atheism is the alternative - science has nothing to say about God.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I think of Faith like Science's hat. Science is the embodyment of everything we can and do know. Faith is the little bit on top that tries to come up with answers for everything we don't or can't know.

Over time, Science grows some more hair on it's head and pushes into the boundaries previously occupied by Faith. Day after day a little bit is pushed further into the realm of knowledge and faith never pushes back. Almost always what Faith thought about that bit of knowledge turns out to be wrong when Science grows into it.

Personally, I don't see why Science needs a hat. I'm happy with my hair flapping about in the wind not knowing what's above it.

This is the "god of the gaps" fallacy. Anyone who adopts this line of thought must have a rather weak faith - and I suspect the person is largely fictitious. As you rightly point out, the gaps get smaller.

The only way I can answer is to explain the role of my own faith.

1) It explains 'why' the world is the way it is, whereas science explains 'how' the world was created.
2) The existence of God explains the amazing order we see and the simplicity of scientific laws; in the early days, scientists did not expect this.
3) Being made in the image of God explains why I am who I am, why I'm here, and the peculiarities of human existence that naturalism alone can never explain.
4) Science can address the natural realm, those things we can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. By definition, it cannot touch on aspects of our existence that our natural senses cannot reach.

Now, that's not a hat. There's no "god of the gaps". While the view you express is commonly heard, I suspect I am closer to the norm.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Science has always caused huge problems for religion

That's utter nonsense. The modern era of science was started in Christendom, funded by the church. Many of its most successful proponents were, and continue to be, Christians.

If science has helped to tear away the veneer of faith engendered by prevailing culture, all well and good. Faith thrives in a hostile environment, when we're forced to make life-or-death decisions based on it. If our faith is immaterial, which has been mostly the case recently in the West, it's not surprising that, for too many, it's purely nominal. How many attending church services 100 years ago really cared about their faith? For plenty, they were attending because everyone else did or because it was the expected thing to do. Ironically, atheism is now falling into this trap.

 

[DCE]

You are doing what every self appointed pastor Ive ever met does in the face of the written historical records.
What you have just written is YOUR interpretation - YOUR personal interpretation.
I've given you some of the early church fathers and their writings.

What you say and preach is NOT what they taught and preached.

I will stick with THEM. They were there at the time, and have the continuous unbroken lineage.

YOUR personal interpretation of the scriptures is just that, YOURS, and this is the reason we have something like 40,000 or more christian churches all contradicting each other in matters of faith and doctrine.

I stick with the Church Fathers. They taught the truth, and they were slaughtered for it.

I spent many years in the desert. The smorgosborg of pick n mix christian churhes just did my head in. The Spirit does not contradict. So some or all must be wrong.
And then I went back to the Church Fathers, to the historical documents, to the written teachings.
And THAT has put me on the straight and narrow.

If Peter had been the first pope, would he not have known it?

Yet never once did he call himself "Supreme Pontiff" or pope.

Nowhere in his writings did he claim supremacy, infallibility or the right to have a successor.

On subjects so important as this it is unthinkable that Peter would remain silent.

If Peter was the vicar of Jesus Christ, how is it that he never acted like a pope Peter never established himself in a sumptuous residence.

He never hired a small army of soldiers to guard him.

He never dressed in clothes drastically different from his brothers.

He never had himself carried about by his brothers on a papal chair similar to one used by Egyptian kings.

Why did he never act like a pope?

Because he obeyed Jesus' command: "Do not call anyone your father on earth, for One is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called 'leaders', for your Leader is one, the Christ."-Matt. 23:9, 10, NW.

Peter had ample opportunity to act as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church does, but he never did.

When Peter used the second key and brought Jehovah's way of salvation to Cornelius, the Bible account says: "As Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell down at his feet and did obeisance to him. But Peter lifted him up, saying: 'Rise; I myself am also a man.'" (Acts 10:25, 26, NW) Did Peter extend a ring to the prostrate Cornelius? No, Peter lifted Cornelius up, saying: "Rise; I myself am also a man." Who ever heard of a pope lifting up a man prostrate before him, admitting his own comparative unimportance and equality with other men?

If Peter was the first pope, how is it that Jesus did not choose one that could set the proper example for future popes?

For popes are not allowed to experience the marital state; yet Peter was married.

If Peter was an infallible pope, how is it that he showed up so many times to be in error?

Just a few moments after Christ spoke the words of Matthew 16:18, Peter appeared far from infallible; and Jesus had to rebuke him, saying: "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumblingblock to me."

Would Christ address the infallible head of his church with terms such as "Satan" and "stumblingblock"?

Time and again Peter showed he was not infallible.

Once he lost faith while walking on water, and sank.

Once he used his sword when he should not have.

He even denied knowing Jesus.

And after Christ's death he still did not understand that Christ must be raised from the dead.

Later Peter slipped into a wrong practice and had to be corrected by the apostle Paul.-Matt. 16:22, 23; 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34; John 18:10, 11; Gal. 2:11, NW.

You say you have given me some of the early church fathers writings.

What I say and preach is NOT what they taught and preached.

They were not telling people the truth, which Jesus taught, that's why.