View Single Post
Old February 16th, 2006, 09:13 AM   #12
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
So your point is that humanity had this natural inclination to subconsciously know the requirements that were to become their own salvation? And that drove their spiritual beliefs up until it actually happened? Interesting idea.
Yes. I also didn’t mention it before, but from a Biblical perspective, there are prophecies of redemption and the advent as early as Adam and Eve, which would obviously over time become parts of other religions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
So morals don't change over time? Slavery wasn't at one time accepted practice by American Protestants, and later not? I'm not saying I am an expert in the field of study, but it is quite apparent that civilized morals have changed over time, both religious morals as well as non-religous morals.
I think we did this before, but generally this is not true. It may be what class of people to enslave, etc, but generally morals have remained pretty steady. You’ve never seen a society where cowardice was exemplified, bravery was frowned upon, or fairness or justice were not appealed to, etc.

If you want a good write up on this, I’d recommend Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. (You can get it as an audio book, too, if that’s your thing.) The first third of his book is devoted to establishing the existence of God to atheists/agnostic via the moral law argument. He’s much better at it than I am. It’s a good book to have anyway. Whether you believe the subject matter or not. He covers a lot of what Christians believe, and why they believe it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Obviously they have some differences, but they do have a portion of shared history.
Yes, both trace back to Abraham. But then differ from there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Also, if you do nothing else to reply to this post, please provide me with a non-biblical or other religous source that confirms Christ's execution.
http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

Check out this link. Some of them have disclaimers on them, but from the studies I’ve done, I believe these are generally accepted but both Christian and non-Christian. Not all reference the crucifixion, but some do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
No, it's not. Now, the debate between OT and NT and the historical accuracies of each are two separate conversations.
Yes it is. It’s usually only fringe scholars who try to make the case against Christian history. (I’m talking NT here.) The OT obviously is a bit tougher due to it’s age, but I don’t know of anyone that really discounts it’s historical accuracy. Again, you’d have to treat it the way you do science. If it has not been disproved you can’t say it’s not true just because it’s content is disagreeable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I'll concede this point because I am really not an expert on Christianities views of the cross, and what is is viewed as a symbol for and when if ever that view changed. It's also not central to any of my points.
Ok.

randilover is offline   Reply With Quote