Charity

I wrote something similar to the following on the "God's accountants, revolving doors, and Occam's razor on the scarcity of miracles" thread in this subforum. When taking God out of the equation, one no longer has to try to justify the unjustifiable things God does. ~~~~~ I reactivated this thread because of a recent event that took place in Butler, Pennsylvania. Almost Immediately after the shooting there, it was being declared as a miracle of God that "you know who" was only slightly injured instead of being killed. The obvious question then is where was the miracle of God for the man who was killed and the two others who were shot and were in critical condition? The logical conclusion to this would be that God clearly picked and chose who to save and who not to save - who to protect from being shot and who not to protect. Different Christians will have different reasons for why God is justified in doing this. One belief might be that God had/has a purpose for the lives of each shooting victim and that His plans will continue to ripple out to include their loved ones and maybe even further. If you take God out of the picture, what is left are just the sad but real facts. ~~~~~ The above is what the name of this thread is about.

The sentence "I hope this makes sense." was referring to my first paragraph. I was in a hurry to finish the post and stuck it at the end. It was a "haste makes waste" sort of thing. "Taking it on faith" is considered a strong virtue for those who believe in a religion. Even when their god(s) fail them, most will hold on to it still.

I reactivated this thread because of a recent event that took place in Butler, Pennsylvania. Almost Immediately after the shooting there, it was being declared as a miracle of God that the ex-president was only slightly injured instead of being killed. The obvious question then is where was the miracle of God for the man who was killed and the two others who were shot and in critical condition? The logical conclusion to this would be that God clearly picked and chose who to save and who not to save. Different Christians will have different reasons for why God is justified in doing this. One belief might be that God had/has a purpose for the lives of each shooting victim and that His plans will continue to ripple out to include their loved ones and maybe even further. If you take God out of the picture, what is left is just the facts.

I guess I was coming from the perspective that as far as Christians are concerned, their beliefs are rooted in the supernatural or spiritual realm and therefore have top authority over all human thoughts, desires, etc. Non-believers are not just disagreeing with them but with their God. So when they criticize those who leave the faith for whatever reasons, they see their criticism as speaking on God's behalf. But I see your point - the reality is that they are humans defending what they as humans have chosen to believe. I hope this makes sense.

I'm getting a better understanding from the above of what you mean by BELEEF, something you have mentioned before in your posts. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding anything. BELEEFS = beleeve like me, think like me, get indoctrinated like me, or I’ll shun you. They cause division which can result in harming others who disagree with you. Beliefs = what everyone has on a multitude of topics but do not need to be pushed upon people. They can be discussed civilly with people who think differently; therefore, arguing with and/or criticizing others are both unnecessary and unappealing. I'm thinking back to what you shared about your mother on page 2 of this thread.

It’s a noteworthy point – when young children see something that is different from what they know or something they simply don’t understand, they often show their wonderment or confusion on their faces and then will ask questions – the most favourite one for parents is “why.” You got to love them for it.

...but he loves you!

I know so little about physics but I know it explains a lot about the world we live in. When it comes to the bible though, the mental gymnastics one goes through to prove God is all good is painful to watch.

Thanks Rocky. I no longer care if Christians disapprove of my reasons for letting go of Christianity. My post was in reply to Raf's suggestion that I use caution against allowing my faith to be undermined by whatever challenges my children or grandchildren were going through and how people falsely connected his rejection of God to the personal challenges he was facing at the time. I've always wondered about this and now suggest there is a double standard applied by believers where personal reasons for accepting Christianity is lauded yet those same reasons are criticized when they play a part in letting go of it. There seems to be more though than just human nature being involved in their need to criticize anyone who does the latter. I think it’s the belief that since God can do no wrong, it is always wrong of the person if they leave the faith. I wonder though how many would keep their faith if God had never promised eternal life in the bible. Would they continue to believe and worship God if their child was killed in an earthquake knowing there was no hope of ever seeing their child again? This doctrine of being reunited with loved ones in a perfect afterlife is reason enough for justifying (whitewashing) the fact that God allowed the tragedy to happen in the first place. I've started reading "The Illusion of God's Presence" by John C. Wathey which gets into the "biological origins of spiritual longing." It's very interesting.

I still wonder about this statement when I think about why many people become Christians especially when they are going through a rough time and facing challenges. Here are a couple examples of this: They hear/read about God’s unconditional love from the bible and/or attend a worship service where the songs are almost always very emotional about God’s love and our love for him (IOW - a loving relationship) and/or they become part of a loving church community. They hear stories or testimonies from people about God healing all kinds of mental, emotional and physical ailments and/or read verses about healing in the bible. If these are acceptable reasons for becoming a Christian, why are Christians critical of those like me who let go of Christianity when facing challenges because I no longer accept/believe that God is all present, all loving and one who heals? Isn't that applying a double standard?

That's a very good reason. According to Wikipedia on the topic of eschatology, "eschatological passages occur in many places in the Bible, in both the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old Testament, apocalyptic eschatology can be found notably in Isaiah 24–27, Isaiah 56–66, Joel, Zechariah 9–14 as well as in the closing chapters of Daniel, and in Ezekiel." I understand there are quite a few reasons given for the necessity of a divine end times - one of them that sticks out to me is to keep people in obedience lest they be punished at the final judgment. This makes sense from the viewpoint of a "righteous judge" such as yahweh, but what was in it for the men who invented these passages, especially the NT ones about Jesus? Has it always been for the purpose of using fear to control the masses so the ones at the top can have all the power and the riches?

Thx for the videos - I've now listened to both of them and can see how a harmony amongst the scholars concerning the existence of Jesus is as impossible as vp's fundamentalist attempts to harmonize the gospels . (I wonder if the current twi still pushes this idea.) Unlike Wierwille, however, these men freely admit it is impossible to be sure of their viewpoints 100 percent (*except now for MacDonald as mentioned below). With Ehrman and Price, I felt Ehrman had a better argument mostly because I could understand what he was saying concerning the bible, and he spoke clearly. Price, otoh, made little sense to me because I have not read up on the mythical sources he was using - something I need to do if I want to be a better judge on such debates. The same with Carrier and MacDonald. Other than the posts on this thread, I know little about the writings of Josephus and nothing about the 'Q' document(s), both of which MacDonald heavily learned on to support his argument. I could follow Carrier at times but not near the end when he and MacDonald were going back and forth. (*This debate was in 2020 and since then, Carrier continues to think there is a 1 in 3 chance that there was a historical Jesus, but he said in 2022 that MacDonald has changed his stance that the odds of Jesus having never existed from 1 in 12 to calling mythicism “preposterous” and “not even worth” discussing. He explains the probable reason for MacDonald's new view here.) All in all, regardless of the disagreements amongst these scholars, the fact that the NT is not the inherent and accurate word of God comes through clearly, imo.

Assuming that Paul's cosmic Jesus was all made up in his head, then there must be a reason for him to truly believe in his own writings. What would be his motive then other than to start his own church most likely for political reasons? I can see the same motive possibly holding true for the writers of the gospels and their myth-filled historicities of Jesus yet according to Ehrman, their accounts of what Jesus taught about salvation differed from what Paul taught. For example. However, Paul's teaching is what Christianity was eventually built upon. OTOH, Wierwille's explanation for the differences btw the gospels and Paul's epistles was that Jesus was not God and therefore did not know about the great mystery being hid in God. He learned of it after his resurrection and/or ascension and then revealed it to Paul.

What are your thoughts about what Carrier says?

Have you heard of Dr. David Skrbina who wrote “The Jesus Hoax?” His theory is that Paul, with the help of some who ministered with him, deliberately constructed the lie that the historical Jesus was the savior of humanity. In other words, Paul knew his epistles were not true. His purpose was to go up against the Roman Empire and weaken the influence it had on the common people. I’ve watched the MythVision video where Skrbina explains all this including where the gospels fit into this “hoax.” He also deals with arguments people have against his writings and continues to invite more feedback. A lot is covered so I plan to listen to it again. At this point, I'm just wondering if you've heard of his ideas and if so, what you think of them. The Jesus Hoax (About his book and includes chapter 1) MythVision Podcast - The Jesus Hoax with Dr. David Skrbina