Could your belief be wrong?

[Acumen]

Oh, and how did you learn about BeliefCorner?

[ThinkItThrough]

Thanks..

learned about it through googling Christian debate forums.. lol

[Acumen]

Well, I'm glad you kept scrolling down.   

[Beautiful_Dreamer]

Urge to debate Pascal's wager rising, rising, falling, falling, passing, let it go "all" let it go....


 

Oh, I know its not foolproof. But I think the idea of living a good life is something anyone can understand, even if there isn't any 'afterlife' reward for it. It can be said that a good life is its own reward in and of itself, and if there is an afterlife bonus, that's just groovy. But if not, you haven't lost because you still would have lived a good life. 

That is an idea I had when I was still in my agnostic/deist phase...

[Acumen]

Urge to debate Pascal's wager rising, rising, falling, falling, passing, let it go "all" let it go....


 

Oh, I know its not foolproof. But I think the idea of living a good life is something anyone can understand, even if there isn't any 'afterlife' reward for it. It can be said that a good life is its own reward in and of itself, and if there is an afterlife bonus, that's just groovy. But if not, you haven't lost because you still would have lived a good life. 

That is an idea I had when I was still in my agnostic/deist phase...

I think the Wager is a good way to start one's pursuit into Christian learning, but probably not a good way to start a relationship with God.

[metis]

For example, to a non-theist who doesn't belief in the afterlife, this life is the only you get, and consequently is incredibly important. A theist who goes through life following their religion, and from it, gains happiness and fulfillment in their delusion, really wins if you are comparing him to a non-theist who lives with emptiness.  Not to say that non-theism can't lead to a fulfilling life; just that in some cases, theism can be more fulfilling because you feel like you are serving a purpose greater than yourself.

What makes you believe that a non-theist "lives with emptiness"?  So, Buddhists, whom are non-theistic, live empty lives?  and non-theistic Hindu's and secular humanists as well?  And doing good to others is done by theists only in an attempt to achieve heaven?   

[sferrari17]

You missed the clarification in the post.  You go back and find it; I'm not gonna say it again.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Not enough Christian's know why they believe

This I agree with.  Hardly any IRL seem to know what and why they believe.  They just go around claiming it anyway. 

As to the rest of your post, if I were so inclined, I would ask you to substantiate your sources and back up your references.  I'm not though, I mean, I disagree, but it's more of an apathetic disagreement.  You could prove pretty much anything in the bible, or anywhere else and it's not going to change my stance.

Just being honest at the beginning.

all

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Urge to debate Pascal's wager rising, rising, falling, falling, passing, let it go "all" let it go....


 

Oh, I know its not foolproof. But I think the idea of living a good life is something anyone can understand, even if there isn't any 'afterlife' reward for it. It can be said that a good life is its own reward in and of itself, and if there is an afterlife bonus, that's just groovy. But if not, you haven't lost because you still would have lived a good life. 

That is an idea I had when I was still in my agnostic/deist phase...

I think the Wager is a good way to start one's pursuit into Christian learning, but probably not a good way to start a relationship with God.

If you want to use Pascals wager as a reason to live a good life, I have no issues with it, but that is not the typical usage.  When you are utilizing it for belief in a deity, I find it pretty worthless. 

Granted, if you find something of value in it, don't let me dissuade you, but I just don't agree.

all

[jacknky]

pascal's wager only works if you can believe what you truly don't believe. perhaps some can do that. I can't.

[jacknky]

T.I.T.,
"Christianity is the only one with any PROOF."

LOL. I've heard that before.

"The Bible predicts many things which have happened in the past 100 years.."

Most of the "prophecies" are so general they could mean anything. One of the things the Bible was pretty specific about however, that Jesus would return from the dead during the lifetime of the disciples, turned out not to be true. In fact, we're still waiting.

Like Nostradamus, we can read anything we want into those prophesies. The human mind is very creative at making connections where none exist.

[Acumen]

Most of the "prophecies" are so general they could mean anything. One of the things the Bible was pretty specific about however, that Jesus would return from the dead during the lifetime of the disciples, turned out not to be true. In fact, we're still waiting.

Where was the bible specific about this?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

I think he's referring to mark 13:30

[sferrari17]

You are absolutely right about the fact that the Bible's prophecies could be interpreted in a billion different ways.  At least, the ones about modern times.  However, the prophecies in the Old Testament about Jesus are scary accurate. 

I have noticed one thing that the Bible has in common with many motivational speakers (and pastors.)  Most speakers of that type try to keep their message relatively general.  That way, you reach more people and more of your audience identifies with your message.  For example, if you preach about being holy in very general terms, nearly everyone is going to identify with the message, because everyone has some kind of unholy sin that they struggle with.  Consequently, whenever you read such and such a verse, it can be inspirational because you interpret the passage in a way that applies to your life.  That's not to say that the Bible is any less true, or that the Holy Spirit doesn't use Scripture to speak to us.  I just thought that was an interesting revelation about the human mind- people take something and get what they want out of it, regardless of it's original intent.

[Acumen]

I think he's referring to mark 13:30

Mark 13:30

I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.



I'm glad you mentioned this passage.  I have to admit, this passage made me think a little.  Usually, I can untangle untidy interpretations with a cursory reading, or perhaps rereading the passage a few times, but this one required a careful reading of the entire chapter for contextual support.

In the NT Greek, geneá literally means space of time, circle of time, or age within the context of time.  It can also mean a sense of affinity or communion based upon the sameness of stock, like the Jewish people, for instance.  In other words, γενεά/genea refers to both a period of time and a stock of race.

Certainly, the most common rendering of the word genea is generation, which is meant to convey a time period of approximately 30-40 years.  So, I won't stretch the interpretation to mean an "age", or "race of people" which would certainly clear up the confusion.  Although, I might add, it could very well refer to the Jewish people as a whole, which is not beyond the scope of genea.

However, the particular problem comes from what is meant from "all these things" in verse 30.  Earlier in the same chapter, Jesus tells his students that not one stone will remain unturned of Jerusalem's great buildings.  When his disciples ask when this will happen, Jesus goes on to give them "indicators" that the time is nearing.

Among these indicators are rumors of wars, national hostility, earthquakes, famines, persecution, betrayal, abandonment, and certainly all of these thing occurred in some form before 70 AD when the Jerusalem was destroyed.  However, there were things that don't appear to have occurred like the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of the stars, that the tremors of heavenly bodies.

And finally, this brings us to our last point.  The words "be done" γίνομαι/ginomai in "till all these things be done" is the prolongation of the middle voice form of a primary verb.  It has been translated as "to be", "to come to pass", "to be done" or "to become."  However, the verb literally means "to begin to be."

And for this reason, different versions of the bible have worded the passage as "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" or as "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place" or "I tell you the truth, all these things will happen while the people of this time are still living."

In each of these other versions, a past tense is not used.  In the NIV, the words "have happened" are used, which incorrectly imply a complete fulfillment.  In the NASB and other versions, the present tense is used to convey correctly that these things will take place in the present tense.  The meaning of the word is "begin to be."  Jesus' point is that the entirety of all these things will start with the current generation.  This is the meaning of the passage.               

[metis]

You missed the clarification in the post.  You go back and find it; I'm not gonna say it again.

No. 

BTW, does your church teach you to be so sarcastic towards others?

[sferrari17]

No, it doesn't.  Sorry about that; I was frustrated about something else that day, and it became evident in my posts.  I apologize for being rude; however, I did have a clarification inside that post.  What is 'no' supposed to mean?  That I didn't have a clarification, or that you don't agree with it, or what?  I'm afraid I don't understand.

[metis]

sferrari:

First of all, apology accepted. 

This is what you posted pretty much in its entirety:

Well, I guess you are correct in that nobody sits down and looks at all the various belief systems in the world and says, "Which one sucks the least?"  Everybody looks for whatever belief system is closest to the truth.  I probably should have said everyone looks for the religion that is most true rather than least wrong.  However, if you look at things from a least wrong perspective, you can get some interesting insights.  For example, to a non-theist who doesn't belief in the afterlife, this life is the only you get, and consequently is incredibly important. A theist who goes through life following their religion, and from it, gains happiness and fulfillment in their delusion, really wins if you are comparing him to a non-theist who lives with emptiness.  Not to say that non-theism can't lead to a fulfilling life; just that in some cases, theism can be more fulfilling because you feel like you are serving a purpose greater than yourself.  And also, not to say that theism is an illusion, cause it isn't 

Incidentally, what is unverifiable personal gnosis?

The way I read this, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a non-theist "lives in emptiness" even though they may lead a "fulfilling life", and my question was why should anyone assume that a non-theist "lives in emptiness"?  Was there something else that you meant?  Maybe you can clarify what I might have missed.     

[sferrari17]

Right; it is possible for a non-theist to lead a fulfilling life.  However, there is a large number of atheists that have psychological issues, such as depression. (That's not to say that theists don't have those issues;  just that I think, based on my own personal experience, not any real statistics, that more atheist suffer from these problems than Christians.)  Just look at the number of atheist authors and philosophers who suffered from depression, went insane, and/or committed suicide.  Those numbers are a lot higher than those of prominent Christians.  That was my point;  whether or not atheism or theism is correct was not the point.  The point was that atheists believe they are on their own, while theists believe that somebody is watching their back at all times.  Psychologically, that would make a higher percentage of atheists suffer from loneliness and depression.  It was merely an observation.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

I'd say, from both a personal and professional perspective that the cases of actual clinical depression (I'm not talking about being just a bit sad here) are equivalent, percentage wise.

all