Reasons to be a christian

Who knew?

And here, Satan gets a bad rap while the harbinger of light is Lucifer. How does this work? God knew we would sin, before we were even a dream, died for us and we still continue to sin so that pastors can make money reminding us that god died for our sins.

Advertisements

God wants many religions

Says popeye

And it appears, this portion

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;

of the letter is creating heat.

god’s problem

Caroline in this post writes that their belief in god demands that they consider homosexuality as objectively immoral.

She goes on to write

The funny thing is, many if not most of those who advocate for the legitimacy, normalcy, and morality of homosexuality also reject God as a moral lawgiver. So they have no objective standard by which to judge its moral status. And without an objective, transcendent standard, they likewise cannot judge the morality of opposing homosexuality.

Religion and by extension, its gods and angels are not the sources of our morality. We act morally because we have reason and are social beings. Without the need to exist in social groups, it is unlikely we would have developed any moral codes.

No man is responsible for his make. So, if we are creatures of god(s), how we turn out is god’s problem, they should deal with it.

It seems Caroline plays fast and loose with her bible to defend whatever position she wants. The good book does says in Luke 6:37, and I am certain Caroline takes these as the words of Jesus

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

In the Euthyphro dilemma, Socrates asks if what is moral is so because god commands it or god commands it because it is moral. Depending on your answer to this question either what is moral depends on god’s whim or god has no control over what is moral.

In a world governed by an omnipotent god, one who only need utter a word and it be done, can one act against such a god’s will? At what point is god freed from being responsible for things done by its minions in a world where it has absolute power and sovereignty?

A challenge to the christians

And I hope those friends of Ark and John Zande can take it up.

A fellow named Dr. Ray Higgins has asked that anyone who can prove with validity that Jesus lived and walked out da grave to present that evidence to him and he will pay all your living expenses until his last.

Since I don’t claim to have as much money, any one with this information will get a standing ovation from my clan😁.

And a bonus question. Most if not all Christians take Christmas day(25th December) as the birth date of Jesus but Easter shifts depending on the weather. One asks, if as Paul alludes in Corinthians, if Jesus is not risen, then the faith is in vain, why is Easter not taken seriously?

In the video below, he repeats the challenge from 20:24

Christianity and Islam

I know full well I am not the first to point this out, but is it not curious that the Koran, which is the word of god, is not alluded to by Christian apologists as evidence for Jesus birth as given in Sura 19:22-34? Or could it be because it denies the resurrection?

And while we are here, what will happen to the Koran as the true word of god, when we come to the conclusion that the Jesus story was a tall tale? We already have scholarly work that points to this direction and I know several of us who think that the Christ-Myth hypothesis is the more reasonable conclusion? And by Mo declaring himself the final prophet, who will abrogate these sections when the time comes that an amendment is required? (For those who are unaware, the Koran has a fail safe valve, where some verses, the revealed word of god, is abrogated by a later verse)

I am hoping Muslims and Christians who stray on this site will enlighten us on this matter. IS it one of those buried under the carpet? Or could we say Christians have chosen to look the other side because if they were to get down to it, both their religions will crumble? One can only guess.

On the gods, by Cicero

In my earlier postings, I wrote about what Cicero says in the Tusculian disputations about death, wisdom, grief and virtue as being sufficient for a happy life.

In this post, we look at the discussion on the gods, whether they exist, what their nature is and whether the government of the universe is in their hands, so to speak.

It has been said by others, wiser than yours truly, that there is nothing new under the sun. And the disputations on the gods is a good example. I think the discoveroids have failed to cite their sources in their arguments for complexity and teleological arguments. These two propositions are expounded so clearly and eloquently in this work than by Behe or William Paley.

In this disputation,Cotta, a priest responds to the arguments of Velleius who argued for the being of gods, claiming the government of the universe is in their hands, that we cannot see a beautiful house and assume it wasn’t designed and finally that the gods are eternal and happy. He begins his response thus

In the question concerning the nature of the Gods, his first inquiry is, whether there are Gods or not. It would be dangerous, I believe, to take the negative side before a public auditory; but it is very safe in a discourse of this kind, and in this company. I, who am a priest, and who think that religions and ceremonies ought sacredly to be maintained, am certainly desirous to have the existence of the Gods, which is the principal point in debate, not only fixed in opinion, but proved to a demonstration; for many notions flow into and disturb the mind which sometimes seem to convince us that there are none. (emphasis mine).

Believers are wont to argue that it is the general assent of all men that there is a god. Platinga even went further to argue there is a god shaped hole in our hearts that only god can fill. To this Cotta says

You have said that the general assent of men of all nations and all degrees is an argument strong enough to induce us to acknowledge the being of the Gods. This is not only a weak, but a false, argument; for, first of all, how do you know the opinions of all nations?

Regarding those who deified birds and other animals, Cotta says

I could speak of the advantage of the ichneumon, the crocodile, and the cat; but I am unwilling to be tedious; yet I will conclude by observing that the barbarians paid divine honors to beasts because of benefits they received from them; whereas your gods not only confer no benefit, but are idle, and do no single act of any description whatever.

Cotta continues to ask

Where is the habitation of the deity? What motive is it that stirs him from his place, supposing he ever  moves? Since it is peculiar for animated beings to have an inclination to something that is agreeable to their natures, what is it that the deity affects, and to what purpose does he exert the motion of his mind and reason?

He tells Velleius, that if he attempts to answer any of the above points, he will come off lamely. This he says is because

For there is never a proper end to reasoning which proceeds on a false foundation; for you asserted likewise that the form of the Deity is perceptible by the mind, but not by sense; that it is neither solid, nor invariable in number; that it is to be discerned by similitude and transition, and that a constant supply of images is perpetually flowing on from innumerable atoms, on which our minds are intent; so that we from that conclude that divine nature to be happy and everlasting.(emphasis mine)

At this point, I am hoping believers reading this can answer us

What, in the name of those Deities concerning whom we are now disputing, is the meaning of all this? For if they exist only in thought, and have no solidity nor substance, what difference can there be between thinking of a Hippocentaur and thinking of a Deity?

And Cotta concludes his disputation by saying

Therefore our friend Posidonius has well observed, in his fifth book of the Nature of the Gods, that Epicurus believed there were no Gods, and that what he had said about the immortal Gods was only said from a desire to avoid unpopularity. He could not be so weak as to imagine that the Deity has only the outward features of a simple mortal, without any real solidity; that he has all the members of a man, without the least power to use them—a certain unsubstantial pellucid being, neither favorable nor beneficial to any one, neither regarding nor doing anything. There can be no such being in nature; and as Epicurus said this plainly, he allows the Gods in words, and destroys them in fact; and if the Deity is truly such a being that he shows no favor, no benevolence to mankind, away with him! For why should I entreat him to be propitious? He can be propitious to none, since, as you say, all his favor and benevolence are the effects of imbecility.

And yours truly agrees.

The missionary position

In this post I wrote, following, Professor Makau Mutua, that indigenous religions should be protected against the proselytizing religions, that is, Christianity and Islam.

Those of you who don’t live under rocks have heard about the missionary, John Chau, who met a not very good fate when he went to spread the not so good news of chesus to guys who were not interested.

Maybe had my ancestors meted the same treatment to early missionaries, the profile of our world would be different. If the missionaries believe their god is everywhere and can perform miracles, I would suggest they pray and fast, while at home, and ask the gods they pray to to convert whoever it is they are interested in saving from a death that meets us all.