So why are you an athiest?

[Allie]

I have always wondered at people's stories, and I would like to hear yours. What would make a person so angry, sorrowful, or unconvinced as to not believe in God?

I come to you in the most humble of circumstances, I am still very young. I probably have less knowledge of the Bible than most people on this site do, but I would still like to contribute to these interesting conversations; Won't you please tell me your story?

[Goat]

Isn't india the same place that there is the big claim that Jesus went there after he got raised from the dead and had a missionary there too?

I've never heard of that.

So you got some vague traditions.. which might or might not be true. Where is the physical evidence of it? Where is the evidence this was not later claimed for 'mystical' reasons?

You really need to read my posts. Firstly, tradition was a line of evidence, but it was anywhere from vague. The tradition, in fact, is extremely detailed to a tee. The significance is the tradition of the Malabar Christians almost directly matched the tradition back in the Roman area. The 1600's Jesuits recorded the detailed account right from the source and it matches all the other accounts. The Gnostic book "Acts of Thomas" confirms these events, as do many many early church writings. Furthermore, the Malabar area churches in India call themselves the "Saint Thomas Christians" and were established very early on. We know for a fact that they were well established by at least 325, and early church sources can attest to this as early as 180 if I'm not mistaken. The only reason anyone would deny that wealth of evidence is if they had an agenda. If you comparatively look at evidence for something like this from that era, this is more than enough.

The esplisles that are attributed to the apostles, what do the mainstream blbilical scholars think? Not me, but the mainstream scholars think?.

The only epistle I used that's regarded as pseudepigraphal by the majority is 1st and 2nd Peter. According to Wiki, the reasoning is:

1) Peter was a fisherman but the epistle is written in cultured Greek
2) Lack of personal detail
3) It quotes from the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible

Those are all absolutely possible, but hardly conclusive.

Oh, as far as I can see, acts to a large extent was written well after 80 c.e.

Well after 80? Apparently most scholars pin it anywhere within the radius of 70-100, and some argue a case for early 60's.

and is just stories about paul,

Paul's the feature of the latter half, the first half focuses on the apostles, mainly Peter and John.

Yes, tradition is a line of evidence, but it is not very good. FOr example, one person who had CP was mentioning as a child her mother took her all over Europe
to have them pray at various churches. about 10 Churches had the hand of a saint that provided miracle cures, AND THEY WERE ALL THE SAME SAINT< and the same hand!.

As for references to books that were lost for a long time, well, I noticed people exaggerate things to prove their traditions. And, if an early 2nd century missionary did come, how can you prove it was Thomas?

YOu have traditions, dating from centuries later, that make a claim. That is evidence for tradition, not evidence for the story being true.

[PC1]

And, if an early 2nd century missionary did come, how can you prove it was Thomas?

I'll spell this out as clear as I can.

1) Because the Christians in the area self-identify as the St. Thomas Christians, and maintain a detailed account of what the apostle did there.
2) Because of the several different early Christian writers who said Thomas went to India.
3) Because of the Acts of Thomas--a Gnostic book which matches the other accounts.

Did you read the Wiki quotes? “If the tradition be critically discussed it must be admitted that several ancient writers mention India as the scene of St. Thomas’ labours.� And “Numerous other passages could be cited from various old liturgies and martyroligies which refer to the work of St. Thomas in India, and these passages at least show that the tradition that St. Thomas died in India was widespread among the early churches.�

Did you read the excerpt I took from that encyclopedia??? That's presents an additional line of evidence.

Now I'll ask: where's the evidence that anyone else established this early church in Malabar? All the external links Wiki provides affirms this position.

We may have to agree to disagree.

[daedalus 2.0]

1) Because the Christians in the area self-identify as the St. Thomas Christians, and maintain a detailed account of what the apostle did there.
2) Because of the several different early Christian writers who said Thomas went to India.
3) Because of the Acts of Thomas--a Gnostic book which matches the other accounts.

And which Christian can you reference that ever told the truth?

[Goat]

1) Because the Christians in the area self-identify as the St. Thomas Christians, and maintain a detailed account of what the apostle did there.
2) Because of the several different early Christian writers who said Thomas went to India.
3) Because of the Acts of Thomas--a Gnostic book which matches the other accounts.

And which Christian can you reference that ever told the truth?

This is particularly true, since at least the Acts of Thomas was a 3rd century book, and therefore written a couple of hundred years after the alleged event. Tradition was offered, but tradition often exaggerates and lies.

[daedalus 2.0]

1) Because the Christians in the area self-identify as the St. Thomas Christians, and maintain a detailed account of what the apostle did there.
2) Because of the several different early Christian writers who said Thomas went to India.
3) Because of the Acts of Thomas--a Gnostic book which matches the other accounts.

And which Christian can you reference that ever told the truth?

This is particularly true, since at least the Acts of Thomas was a 3rd century book, and therefore written a couple of hundred years after the alleged event. Tradition was offered, but tradition often exaggerates and lies.

Yes, Jesus never wrote anything and there is no Xian who is perfect and ever told the truth. (All are sinners)

The is quite a pickle for the Xian.

The irony is that each of them claim to tell us the truth of the Bible in their own way!

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I have always wondered at people's stories, and I would like to hear yours. What would make a person so angry, sorrowful, or unconvinced as to not believe in God?

I come to you in the most humble of circumstances, I am still very young. I probably have less knowledge of the Bible than most people on this site do, but I would still like to contribute to these interesting conversations; Won't you please tell me your story?

I am an atheist because I cannot accept the alternative. When I first became an atheist, it was for purely logical reasons, because I didn't feel there was enough evidence to justify belief in him. Now, I hate the very concept of a God, the very concept of an absolute ruler, standing over me. Why do I hate it? Because if there is indeed a God out there, no matter how much I work, how hard I try, my future is firmly planted in his hands. Some would call this hunger for power, but I do not desire full control over what happens to me. I only wish to empower my decisions, to know that no matter what happens, I still have the power to choose, and that choice will have an effect. As long as God exists, my choices can't be empowered because he holds the ability to nullify the results of any choice I make. I simply can't accept a world in which a person's success is ultimately determined by the random whim of a dictator. Essentially, I am an atheist because I would loathe the world I was living in if I wasn't one.

[chocs]

I am a Christian and I try and do it the right old school way as well. Firstly I would like to say that "modern Christianity" is giving real Christianity a bad name. How can some Christians try to convince unbelievers to believe in something when they themselves are slowely adulterating the truth. We have to stick with the original Apostles and their teachings through the original Church.

I have seen pets being brought in the Holy Churches of the Lord, I have seen SOME priests drink, go to cafes and football. Others teach only about becoming wealthy. Some young Christians think no struggle in life is required as a Christian (you only believe in a name) and so on.

To those that think it is fashionable to move away from the Bible totally, consider that sin is as old as virtue since the world began so there is nothing cool or fashionable about this.

Other Christians try and cover up mistakes that have happened and try to act perfect and it's worse because everything eventually comes to the light. By covering up they try to be God. Instead of teaching others do not put your trust in us humans we are sinful only trust in the Lord who never sinned and will never let you down.

I believe everyone knows that God exists and who the real God is but some chose to not acknowledge this. That is why I hardly try to convince others I just try and pray instead. Proof is all around the world if a person truly seeks God in his or her life. I believe God likes to work privately in this way wanting a personal relationship with each person because he loves all so much. He doesn't like showing himself to large groups of people because he doesn't want to force you to like him. He wants you to find him yourself. Then he will be your friend.

I wish everybody well in life, Christian and non Christian. But through my experience I believe everybody gets good things and bad things in life even if they act like they only get good. However with the power of Christ the bad things eventually feel like good things so your life after struggle becomes more good than bad.

[Zzyzx]

.
Hi Chocs,

Welcome to the forum. As you enter the debates I will be one of the people who challenge your statements. What you have done with this post is known as preaching. It is not debating. You state opinions but substantiate nothing. You tell about your god concepts but give no reason why anyone should respect what you say.

I have asked several questions and made comments about your unsubstantiated claims. Perhaps it will be helpful to address those questions and comments in the form of a debate.

I am a Christian and I try and do it the right old school way as well. Firstly I would like to say that "modern Christianity" is giving real Christianity a bad name.

Kindly define "Real Christianity" and show how "Real Christians" can be identified.

Who, exactly, set(s) the "rules" for "Real Christianity"?

How can some Christians try to convince unbelievers to believe in something when they themselves are slowely adulterating the truth.

Do you know "the truth"? Can you demonstrate that knowledge to others using something other than opinion, conjecture, testimonials, legends and ancient texts?

We have to stick with the original Apostles and their teachings through the original Church.

Can you cite the teachings of the "original apostles"?

I have seen pets being brought in the Holy Churches of the Lord, I have seen SOME priests drink, go to cafes and football. Others teach only about becoming wealthy. Some young Christians think no struggle in life is required as a Christian (you only believe in a name) and so on.

Are those actions specifically forbidden by the teachings of "original apostles"? Cite reference.

To those that think it is fashionable to move away from the Bible totally, consider that sin is as old as virtue since the world began so there is nothing cool or fashionable about this.

Can you demonstrate the "sin" exists as something other than a religious concept?

Other Christians try and cover up mistakes that have happened and try to act perfect and it's worse because everything eventually comes to the light. By covering up they try to be God. Instead of teaching others do not put your trust in us humans we are sinful only trust in the Lord who never sinned and will never let you down.

If all the "teachings" of Christianity are from humans, and if humans are "sinful" and cannot be trusted ("only trust the lord"), and since there is no record of "the lord's" teachings – HOW, exactly, is one to know what to believe and trust?

I believe everyone knows that God exists and who the real God is but some chose to not acknowledge this.

You believe a falsehood. I can attest with great certainty that at least two people do NOT accept the claim that god or gods exist (my wife an myself). Your statement is dead wrong. Would you care to make a correction?

That is why I hardly try to convince others I just try and pray instead. [/quote]
Are you saying that you do not proselytize? If so, what are your motives for posting to this forum?

Proof is all around the world if a person truly seeks God in his or her life.

What many see as "proof of god" is NOT regarded as proof by others who have different understandings of nature.

How anyone "know" that their favorite "god" is responsible for whatever they see or experience? Could their visions and experience not be produced by a cleaver "Satan" or "evil spirit"?

I believe God likes to work privately in this way wanting a personal relationship with each person because he loves all so much.

Is there reason that others should agree? Is this scriptural or is it church doctrine?

He doesn't like showing himself to large groups of people because he doesn't want to force you to like him.

Kindly substantiate that claim -- or is it just an opinion? What makes you think so – and tell others as though it was true?

He wants you to find him yourself. Then he will be your friend.

That is known as the "hide and seek god".

Which god is it that is playing H&S with humans?

Do people "find god" without input from other humans (writing or speaking)?

I wish everybody well in life, Christian and non Christian. But through my experience I believe everybody gets good things and bad things in life even if they act like they only get good.

I agree on all counts.

However with the power of Christ the bad things eventually feel like good things so your life after struggle becomes more good than bad.

For "bad things to eventually feel like good things" requires delusion. If something truly "bad" happens (say a loved one is murdered) to make that into a "good thing" is ludicrous. Is delusion a "benefit" of Christianity?

[Thought Criminal]

I have always wondered at people's stories, and I would like to hear yours. What would make a person so angry, sorrowful, or unconvinced as to not believe in God?

I come to you in the most humble of circumstances, I am still very young. I probably have less knowledge of the Bible than most people on this site do, but I would still like to contribute to these interesting conversations; Won't you please tell me your story?

As it happens, I'm unconvinced, not angry or sorrowful. I'm unconvinced because, as I've demonstrated in a thread with a similar name, there is no rational basis upon which to justify a belief in God. Or, to put it more simply; there's just no good reason to believe.

TC

[daedalus 2.0]

I am a Christian and I try and do it the right old school way as well. Firstly I would like to say that "modern Christianity" is giving real Christianity a bad name. How can some Christians try to convince unbelievers to believe in something when they themselves are slowely adulterating the truth. We have to stick with the original Apostles and their teachings through the original Church.

I have seen pets being brought in the Holy Churches of the Lord, I have seen SOME priests drink, go to cafes and football. Others teach only about becoming wealthy. Some young Christians think no struggle in life is required as a Christian (you only believe in a name) and so on.

To those that think it is fashionable to move away from the Bible totally, consider that sin is as old as virtue since the world began so there is nothing cool or fashionable about this.

Other Christians try and cover up mistakes that have happened and try to act perfect and it's worse because everything eventually comes to the light. By covering up they try to be God. Instead of teaching others do not put your trust in us humans we are sinful only trust in the Lord who never sinned and will never let you down.

I believe everyone knows that God exists and who the real God is but some chose to not acknowledge this. That is why I hardly try to convince others I just try and pray instead. Proof is all around the world if a person truly seeks God in his or her life. I believe God likes to work privately in this way wanting a personal relationship with each person because he loves all so much. He doesn't like showing himself to large groups of people because he doesn't want to force you to like him. He wants you to find him yourself. Then he will be your friend.

I wish everybody well in life, Christian and non Christian. But through my experience I believe everybody gets good things and bad things in life even if they act like they only get good. However with the power of Christ the bad things eventually feel like good things so your life after struggle becomes more good than bad.

Luckily, God will punish these people in the afterlife, right? So, we should happily go about our business and let those corrupt preachers of the Word do their business. They should be allowed to do whatever they want - it's in the name of God and for the Glory of God, even if they are raping young boys or stealing money from old ladies.