Most important truth

Post Reply New Topic

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." - C.S. Lewis

Of course on atheistic websites and generally everywhere governments control education and attempt to pretend to be God, the presumption unspoken or militantly trilled is how we're all nothing but animals and so much foundationless morality and stolen pretend forms of things with what's taboo and sacrosanct swapped out in an Isaiah 5:20 manner. But if Christianity is true, and morality derives from God rather than the sinking and ever shifting sand of merely human opinion, then what is right and wrong remains solid rather than flucuating based on whomever shouts the loudest or has the most money to convince a bunch of idiots who think they're wise to shout loudly for the glorious state in their nations to ever further subvert their natural rights for the sake of supposed "peace & safety".

So is Christianity true? I think so, yes. And the teleological argument is one of the better ones, for the existence of a Designer anyway, and then Biblical historicity for Christianity in particular. Here's a TLDR section to be blindly dismissed or nitpicked on any misstatement or otherwise laughed at by the mockers and scoffers running this circus like they did back in 2007 and all throughout:

It is improbable that life and the universe arose from nothing. And the sum of the probabilities of a set and its opposite yield 100%, p + ~p = 1. So for design and not-design, d + ~d, as not-design approaches zero the probability of design approaches 100%. Gambling against that is pretending the house never wins. You might as well think erosion made Paley's watch and tornadoes can build spacecraft. There is design, not merely "apparent" but real, and design implies a designer. So there is a Designer, and the Bible has the most historicity of any historical document so it is the most probable source of the historic revelation of who the Designer is. And given messianic prophecies like Isaiah 53 written centuries before Christ, being fulfilled in Christ, Jesus is Lord.

So, it's better to warn others they're walking off a cliff than to care more about their feelings than their eternal soul, as with the proverb "faithful are the wounds of a friend, but enemies multiply kisses" and "iron sharpens iron". True love isn't about arbitrary acceptance, though it's frustrating when everyone has a customer mindset and can't recognize true love anymore. But it's best to pick ones battles rather than fight every single one and wear yourself out still. Sometimes it's pointless to try, by the ubiquity of the state fostered karen attitudes authenticity is made almost futile artificially, though it's perhaps also wrong not to try. It's best to do what's right regardless whether or not anyone approves.

Life is a gift from God, and so much malthusian philosophy seeped into everything is a sadness. What kind of brilliant species hates its own offspring? Yet so many are conditioned to demonize actual babies. What the heck? How have we let eugenicists run amok? What is this? What the HECK is this?!

And it's amazing too how the oligarchs the run the show control speech through the loophole of pretending businesses can violate rights freely, making it so everything is subject to the feelings of those in power currently. But their silly hill kingdoms are made of sand and under the winds of eternity they'll crumble and fall.

And it is eternal destiny that matters most, regardless whether at the end of this transitory game of life we're counted as "elect" or "reprobate" as those which think predestination is true might say, but whether we have free will or merely the illusion of it, it still seems like we have the choice to make as to whether or not we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord in this trial of life or whether we wait until death to bow down and recognize the truth rather than pretend so many infinite lies of humans are the way things work.

Well, time for the laughter and threats again, yay. -_-

I'd actually disagree - there is a way to look at it as moderately important, and that's seeing it through the lens of being a group selection tool.

Christianity Explained: Why Those Who Took the Christ Pill Dominated the World

Sounds like a version of pascal's wager. As someone who is not christian but is friends with a lot of christians, faith is something you have. If you don't believe, you don't believe.

As an atheist, I see similar arguments in favor of Christianity all the time and I find them completely unconvincing. My question is, why doesn't the all-knowing God provide his followers with an argument atheists such as myself will find more convincing?

If your talking about just evolution verses a Bereshit/Genesis 6 day creation belief. You have better arguments from the Jewish side of the line,Christian's offer little in proving the Bible right,the Jewish mystics in particular are far better at convincing pro Bible argument.

Christianity is very faith based and does not offer a lot of evidence other than intuitive arguments.Like; "If Jesus wasn't the son of God than why did he just admit he was not the messiah and avoid crucifixion,so his going to the cross and dying proves he must have been what he claimed to be.A mortal man would just said:Ok I'm not really God don't crucify me right."

But this intuitive argument relies on the belief Jesus was crucified and Josephus is the only non-Biblical source validating the crucifixion and Josephus has been caught in lies before and was a traitor and not a reliable source of history.

Christianities intuitive arguments are persuasive but they only work under the belief that the New Testament is really the word of God,which Christian apologists never bother to prove.

You have the letters of Paul written in the 50's but Paul never met Jesus.
The Gospels who were written from a perspective of those who knew Jesus were not written until,Mark,Matthew,Luke between 65-75 and John in 115ce and revelation around that time as well,pointing to Gospel John and John the divine of revelation being the same John.

There are some Orthodox Rabbi's like Chaim Coffman who could give a atheist evolutionist a run for there money but you would have to take Christianity on faith.

The teleological argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The universe is unfathomably large. If you think there is only a one in a billion chance of life emerging in a year on an Earth-like planet, then given there are around 40 billion planets like Earth in the Milky Way, and 2 trillion galaxies in the universe, and the universe has been habitable for say 7 billion years, the chances of life emerging are very high indeed. We have a very good understanding of how life becomes more complex through evolution, and an understanding that chemicals are subject to similar pressures, even if we’re not sure exactly how chemicals first developed self-replication.

Furthermore, this universe hardly seems particularly well designed. Why do giraffes have laryngeal nerves which go all the way up their necks, a detour of over 4 metres, rather than straight to their destination? Why do humans have tailbones? Why is cancer so common? Why do our arteries become clogged with deposits?

Besides which, even if one does accept the teleological argument, there is no reason to assume that the designer is the Christian God, rather than one of the many other fictional deities that humanity has invented, or even one we haven’t. Certainly any designer would either be evil or heartless. A deity which is all-powerful, all-knowing, and entirely good would not tolerate the levels of suffering this universe mandates.

On the importance of Christianity - it is of middling importance regardless of its truth. Christianity has inspired a huge amount of action, positive, neutral, and negative, which makes it a very important force in our society.

Well, I wasn't around on WrongPlanet in 2007 to mock and scoff, so I have some catching up, it would seem.

First of all:

Why Christianity in particular? There are several religions that came before Christianity (hinduism, judaism, jainism, buddhism, taoism, etc) and several that came after it (islam, sikhism, Baháʼí etc.).

Many of these religions have teleological arguments of their own, and many have scriptures that go back centuries before Christianity, by the way.

Second of all:

They didn't. Nor is that the scientific view (hint: 1978 Nobel Prize in physics), so it appears to be (yet another) standard straw man argument.

So the rest of your argument more or less falls apart from here on.

Another contradiction of the New Testament is the trinity.

I believe Mark mentions a Father,Son and Holy Spirit Which is the base for the trinitarian Godhead.

But in Revelation it says that Jesus says that he does not know the time of the end,only the Father knows the time of the end.

So if the Son is not equal to the Father in knowledge and power than how can they be one and the Son a un-created divine being as the trinity suggests.

Some non trinitarian Christians believe the trinity was created by the council of Nivea,however parts of the New Testament clearly reference a trinity where other don't, like Revelations that clearly says the Son is not equal to the Father.

Why no mention of the trinity in the Old Testament?
If the trinity is eternal than it has always been here,so why didn't Old Testament prophets know about it.

There is not one reference in the entirety of the Tanakh or Torah of a Aba,Ben ruach kodesh.Not one mention at all,why didn't Moses or Isaiah know of this Aba,Ben ruach kodesh if it truly is an eternal triune God head.

You ask what about non trinitarian Christians?If Jesus was not divine as the J witnesses say or Christadelphians believe or the Arians believed.

There is another problem,if a man died on a cross and his sacrifice is worshipped,then your worshipping a human sacrifice.Human sacrifice is clearly non Biblical and quite a horrible thing,and that is then what is being worshipped if Jesus is not divine.

It's loose loose either way.

Why would Christianity be more true than Hinduism or Zoroastrianism? I'm a non-believer because they all appear equally true.

Zoroastrianism is a lot of inspiration Christianity.

Accepting the premise that Jesus is God, wouldn't that make that act actually a divine sacrifice? The Romans just unknowingly sacrificed God to himself. Greatest prank ever.

I'm well aware, I've wrote at length about how Christianity, the various Gnostic faiths (including Gnostic Christianity), Zoroastrianism and the other surviving Iranic faiths appear to share a lot of ideas. You could add Druze, along with many of the more mystical sects of Islam into that family too.

It's also (by my understanding) likely the reason why there have been attempts to claim Christianity was inspired by Buddhism. I'd argue it's more likely that Buddhism is also rooted in the same Indo-Aryan notions as those Iranic religions that inspired everything described above.

You missed the whole argument,my post started by defeating the trinity,then I argued against non trinitarian Christianity.

I understood you were viewing it from a non-Trinitarian perspective. I wasn't refuting you, just taking another angle for framing.

Perhaps this is part of the reason Trinitarians won, non-Trinitarian arguments might leave one feeling less firm in their faith.

Plus if Jesus wasn't divine then there worshipping a human sacrifice,that's a bigger problem.

But the NT says Jesus is not equal to the Father,so how can there be a Trinity.

Also no mention of Aba,Ben,ruach kodesh in Old Testament
If trinity is eternal then why didn't OT know about it.

And once again I'm that high-school non-graduate who doesn't understand the Bible-speak