Is hell enough as punishment?

[_subgenius]

So is that a "No" from you subby?

No, that is not.
Obviously in your transition from Drifting to your new identity of "Bazooka" you have forgotten that i have already provided argument and evidence for God on another thread(s).
Further evidenced by your alleged inability/unwillingness to recall any of that.

[_subgenius]

Of course it is. I don't care what he has to say anyways.

nothing says "i don't care" more than stopping and taking the time to proclaim "i don't care"

I am aware of what the LDS church teaches and the problems with it.

Talk about needing evidence for a claim....CFR

I was asking madeleine since she seems to understand the LDS problems as well but also claims to be able to determine literal truths. So far I don't feel I have gotten specific answers yet. How does a Christian determine that Jesus is the son of God and was resurrected?

How does one consider
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
to be true?
Obviously Themis considers the above quote to be false...as it lacks the flavor of evidence suitable to his palate.

Themis's problem is a novice problem for many a budding young atheist-wannabe....predisposition...they have set their mind that something cannot possibly be true and therefore will always recoil against any and all evidence or argument contrary...the more convincing the evidence the more the response of "trickery" or some other such tomfoolery.

Themis's posts are best left for amusement and passing idle time.

[_madeleine]

So anyway! As you can see, discernment is the process that Catholics are taught. Faith and reason inform each other, the root of this being, we believe we are created by God as rational creatures, able to reason. We don't believe God will contradict faith with reason, or contradict reason with faith. Discernment is a process of study, prayer, observation, and acting.

What I see is jumping to conclusions about things you cannot really know and have little chance of being accurate. There is little evidence of Jesus being a real person. There is even less for many of the claims made about him and the road map you think leads to Catholics being his church. Reason cannot really get one there.

If you dismiss the New Testament, Josephus, the ECF, then no, you have no evidence.

John the Evangelist calls Jesus, the logos, interpreted as Word, but it's meaning implies reason. The root of the word logic. Reason itself is Jesus, thus why you will see / hear Catholics say, Jesus is Truth itself. As we understand Jesus to be the Word of God (logos) fully and perfectly revealed.

I may understand to some extent why people want to bastardize certain words, but this may explain the problem when I ask about how one knows the truth. Truth is in the proposition. It's only about whether the proposition is true or false, right or wrong, correct or incorrect.

Basic Christian theology/philosophy, which isn't bastardization, unless I suppose you're a Mormon and hold to "teachings of men" sort of ideas. Truth, from the POV of us (the created) is relative. Christianity's claim is, Truth is not relative.

The evidence of the Cross is the evidence for God's acting in the world.

Could you give a specific example of evidence of God acting in the world. Also maybe evidence for God actually existing as well.

How much time do you have to go through the claims of Jesus, related in the New Testament, compare to the Old Testament, and the proof he provided himself, as to who he is? God became man and dwelt among us, is a basic Christian doctrine. The Incarnation is God acting in the world, very directly.

In the end, as I said, faith and reason work together.

[Guest]

Of course it is. I don't care what he has to say anyways.

nothing says "i don't care" more than stopping and taking the time to proclaim "i don't care"

I am aware of what the LDS church teaches and the problems with it.

Talk about needing evidence for a claim....CFR

I was asking madeleine since she seems to understand the LDS problems as well but also claims to be able to determine literal truths. So far I don't feel I have gotten specific answers yet. How does a Christian determine that Jesus is the son of God and was resurrected?

How does one consider
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
to be true?
Obviously Themis considers the above quote to be false...as it lacks the flavor of evidence suitable to his palate.

Themis's problem is a novice problem for many a budding young atheist-wannabe....predisposition...they have set their mind that something cannot possibly be true and therefore will always recoil against any and all evidence or argument contrary...the more convincing the evidence the more the response of "trickery" or some other such tomfoolery.

Themis's posts are best left for amusement and passing idle time.

Coming from atheism, faith is a mystery. Why do some people have it and others don't? The Mormon answer, "something is wrong with you if you don't have faith", isn't really an answer, as there is something wrong with all of us.

Even now, that faith exists as something I have, I cannot answer the question of why do some have faith and others do not? I've had good conversations with believers (Catholic), who view the answer in form of "choseness", which changes the question to "Why does God choose some and not others?" A common question among adult Catholic converts is "Why did God take so long to show (choose) me?"

God meets us where we are, and a non-believer, one lacking in faith, is not exempt. God is there whether you have faith or not. Each person has their own journey.

So, I don't think there is anything wrong with what Themis is asking, or, anything wrong with Themis. They are valid questions, which can be reasoned out, but faith is faith. When you don't have it, it is either ignored, or explained away. Faith cannot be laid out on a table and dissected. We can, in a fashion, lay our hearts out for inspection, but what that does or does not do for anyone, is not mine to say.

I don't think it is possible for someone who has had faith their entire life to understand how strange it is to be in a room full of people who have faith, when it is just something that you don't have, at all. I've sat at Mass, as an atheist, and watched people, their faith very visible. It is a very odd experience, and now that I sit at Mass, with faith, I would never presume to judge anyone. All belong to God, and all belong at Mass, no matter where they are on their journey.

[_SteelHead]

None are primary sources contemporary to Jesus. All having been written decades after his death. They do not rise to the threshold of evidence.

I tend to lean towards Bart Erhman's take on the historicity of Jesus. Yes he lived, but the supernatural parts are additions from a later date.

[_madeleine]

None are primary sources contemporary to Jesus. All having been written decades after his death. They do not rise to the threshold of evidence.

I tend to lean towards Bart Erhman's take on the historicity of Jesus. Yes he lived, but the supernatural parts are additions from a later date.

Does it matter the date they are written? They are still primary sources. For example, Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Evangelist, is a primary source. The primary sources are also held in the form of Tradition, the Faith handed on, which Mormons reject.

I am not a fan of Erhman.

[_LittleWorthen]

No I can not. But in the old testament he punishes people.

in the old testament we didn't have the Atonement. That is why there are stories where people are punished. it was much harder to repent then. that's why we needed Jesus in the first place.
but to answer the question about if there are benifits to repenting while still on earth, yes there are. it is much easier to repent on earth when you still have a body and are like a child because of the veil. accounting for and repenting of your sins after the veil has been lifted, is much, much harder

[_SteelHead]

By definition if the author of say the book of Mathew was not present for the events, then it is not a primary source. Sources written 30-60 years after the fact, unless by authors who were present for the events are not primary sources.

[_madeleine]

By definition if the author of say the book of Mathew was not present for the events, then it is not a primary source. Sources written 30-60 years after the fact, unless by authors who were present for the events are not primary sources.

Mark is the oldest gospel, the author traditionally assigned as John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas, both who are described as having been disciples of Jesus when he was alive and witnesses of the Resurrection.

[_SteelHead]

The authorship and historicity of the gospels is a topic of much discussion, but there a few historians who would assign primary source status to the gospels.

Though yes, Mark appears to be the oldest, there are significance lapses in palestinain geography present, and it wasn't not written in Aramaic. Both being factors against viewing it as a primary source.

Again, this topic is one of considerable discussion. Nipper would argue that the Bible was written exactly how it internally claims eg Moses wrote the Pentateuch... Despite no evidence for such claims.

Regardless, the gospepls are poor evidence for the supernatural Jesus, from a historical evidence perspective.