Question: If someone leaves the Christian church & becomes an atheist, is he or she still a Chr...?

[Dhara]

Apostate? I never use that term.

 

[Anonymous1977]

I edited my last post to you but I respect your right to believe that.




-

You can test it scientifically through observation. All beings die. Plants die. Planets die and come into existence. It's a universal phenomenon. Show me anything in nature you think is ever lasting.

Good luck.

Well the Bible says that men use to live for nearly 1,000 years whereas today an average lifespan is 75 years...hypothetically if man could live for 1,000 years, there could be a "God" who lives eternally...but that is just belief like you (you specifically I mean and not the word "you" to mean people generally) couldn't prove that there isn't a God who lives eternally but you are just going from your knowledge and belief.

But like I said, the Buddha apostatized from Hinduism didn't he?




-

There is no evidence in nature for "eternal" existence. Feel free to point to ANYTHING in the universe that is ever lasting.

A God could hide him or her self if he or she wanted to.

So you just believe but can not prove that nothing in existence lives for ever, like someone can believe but be unable to prove that there is a God who lives forever.

But I'm an Agnostic...if I were involved in a religion it would more than likely involve an entity that is to be worshiped (a God or a Deity.) But you sound like you are a Buddhist. Did the Buddha apostatize from Hinduism?




-

A God could hide? That sounds like a belief, not observation or fact. Everything in this universe is impermanent.

I respect your right to believe that.




-

 

[Dhara]

You can test it scientifically through observation. All beings die. Plants die. Planets die and come into existence. It's a universal phenomenon. Show me anything in nature you think is ever lasting.

Good luck.

Well the Bible says that men use to live for nearly 1,000 years whereas today an average lifespan is 75 years...hypothetically if man could live for 1,000 years, there could be a "God" who lives eternally...but that is just belief like you (you specifically I mean and not the word "you" to mean people generally) couldn't prove that there isn't a God who lives eternally but you are just going from your knowledge and belief.

But like I said, the Buddha apostatized from Hinduism didn't he?




-

There is no evidence in nature for "eternal" existence. Feel free to point to ANYTHING in the universe that is ever lasting.

A God could hide him or her self if he or she wanted to.

So you just believe but can not prove that nothing in existence lives for ever, like someone can believe but be unable to prove that there is a God who lives forever.

But I'm an Agnostic...if I were involved in a religion it would more than likely involve an entity that is to be worshiped (a God or a Deity.) But you sound like you are a Buddhist. Did the Buddha apostatize from Hinduism?




-

A God could hide? That sounds like a belief, not observation or fact. Everything in this universe is impermanent.

I respect your right to believe that.




-

It's not a belief, it's the ways things abide in this universe. They are impermanent. If you think you're an eternal being, then when you die you'll find out that you died.

 

[Anonymous1977]

...the word "apostate" is definitely not an imaginary word...
-

It's not one I hear many people use, or a reason to kill anyone.

Well I'm an Agnostic. But if the church (Catholic Church) or whoever use to believe in killing apostates or whatever that is them and their history.

But Martin Luther, once again, is evidence that apostasy is real .




-

 

[Anonymous1977]

Apostate? I never use that term.

Well, it's a real term...study the life of Martin Luther if you believe that it is not a real term...

But the Buddha was a former believer in Hinduism, is that correct?











-

 

[Anonymous1977]

Well the Bible says that men use to live for nearly 1,000 years whereas today an average lifespan is 75 years...hypothetically if man could live for 1,000 years, there could be a "God" who lives eternally...but that is just belief like you (you specifically I mean and not the word "you" to mean people generally) couldn't prove that there isn't a God who lives eternally but you are just going from your knowledge and belief.

But like I said, the Buddha apostatized from Hinduism didn't he?




-

There is no evidence in nature for "eternal" existence. Feel free to point to ANYTHING in the universe that is ever lasting.

A God could hide him or her self if he or she wanted to.

So you just believe but can not prove that nothing in existence lives for ever, like someone can believe but be unable to prove that there is a God who lives forever.

But I'm an Agnostic...if I were involved in a religion it would more than likely involve an entity that is to be worshiped (a God or a Deity.) But you sound like you are a Buddhist. Did the Buddha apostatize from Hinduism?




-

A God could hide? That sounds like a belief, not observation or fact. Everything in this universe is impermanent.

I respect your right to believe that.




-

It's not a belief, it's the ways things abide in this universe. They are impermanent. If you think you're an eternal being, then when you die you'll find out that you died.

I respect your right to believe that...

Peace & Love,
A1977




-

 

[Dhara]

There is no evidence in nature for "eternal" existence. Feel free to point to ANYTHING in the universe that is ever lasting.

A God could hide him or her self if he or she wanted to.

So you just believe but can not prove that nothing in existence lives for ever, like someone can believe but be unable to prove that there is a God who lives forever.

But I'm an Agnostic...if I were involved in a religion it would more than likely involve an entity that is to be worshiped (a God or a Deity.) But you sound like you are a Buddhist. Did the Buddha apostatize from Hinduism?




-

A God could hide? That sounds like a belief, not observation or fact. Everything in this universe is impermanent.

I respect your right to believe that.




-

It's not a belief, it's the ways things abide in this universe. They are impermanent. If you think you're an eternal being, then when you die you'll find out that you died.

I respect your right to believe that...

Peace & Love,
A1977




-

Feel free to scientifically test whether it's true that everything, the universe, it's contents and the beings therein are impermanent.

It seems to want to call that fact a "belief". That's fine. In that case, you're well on your way to believing in God, since you think permanence is what's true.

 

[Anonymous1977]

A God could hide him or her self if he or she wanted to.

So you just believe but can not prove that nothing in existence lives for ever, like someone can believe but be unable to prove that there is a God who lives forever.

But I'm an Agnostic...if I were involved in a religion it would more than likely involve an entity that is to be worshiped (a God or a Deity.) But you sound like you are a Buddhist. Did the Buddha apostatize from Hinduism?




-

A God could hide? That sounds like a belief, not observation or fact. Everything in this universe is impermanent.

I respect your right to believe that.




-

It's not a belief, it's the ways things abide in this universe. They are impermanent. If you think you're an eternal being, then when you die you'll find out that you died.

I respect your right to believe that...

Peace & Love,
A1977




-

Feel free to scientifically test whether it's true that everything, the universe, it's contents and the beings therein are impermanent.

It seems to want to call that fact a "belief". That's fine. In that case, you're well on your way to believing in God, since you think permanence is what's true.

:-D I'm not an it brother or sister, if that was not a typo. But you cannot prove that there isn't a God who lives forever. So it's actually just a belief. But I'm leaving the site right now...intend to return later on.

Peace, Love, and Blessings,
A1977




-

 

[Dhara]

A God could hide? That sounds like a belief, not observation or fact. Everything in this universe is impermanent.

I respect your right to believe that.




-

It's not a belief, it's the ways things abide in this universe. They are impermanent. If you think you're an eternal being, then when you die you'll find out that you died.

I respect your right to believe that...

Peace & Love,
A1977




-

Feel free to scientifically test whether it's true that everything, the universe, it's contents and the beings therein are impermanent.

It seems to want to call that fact a "belief". That's fine. In that case, you're well on your way to believing in God, since you think permanence is what's true.

:-D I'm not an it brother or sister, if that was not a typo. But you cannot prove that there isn't a God who lives forever. So it's actually just a belief. But I'm leaving the site right now...intend to return later on.

Peace, Love, and Blessings,
A1977




-

I don't see where I referred to you as an "it".

I'm sorry you thought I did. It's not my intention.

I don't require you to prove the existence of God. I'm saying that impermanence meets scientific standards whereas belief in God does not.

 

[Anonymous1977]

I respect your right to believe that.




-

It's not a belief, it's the ways things abide in this universe. They are impermanent. If you think you're an eternal being, then when you die you'll find out that you died.

I respect your right to believe that...

Peace & Love,
A1977




-

Feel free to scientifically test whether it's true that everything, the universe, it's contents and the beings therein are impermanent.

It seems to want to call that fact a "belief". That's fine. In that case, you're well on your way to believing in God, since you think permanence is what's true.

:-D I'm not an it brother or sister, if that was not a typo. But you cannot prove that there isn't a God who lives forever. So it's actually just a belief. But I'm leaving the site right now...intend to return later on.

Peace, Love, and Blessings,
A1977




-

I don't see where I referred to you as an "it".

I'm sorry you thought I did. It's not my intention.

I don't require you to prove the existence of God. I'm saying that impermanence meets scientific standards whereas belief in God does not.

Oh I see...yeah...other powers may be at work making things appear like you referred to me as "it" but "it's all good" as the saying goes :-D .

So you appear to be a Buddhist...can I ask out of curiosity, are you a Asian woman?

Back at the site early,
A1977




-

 

[the_human_being]

 

[talksalot]

Yeah...my focus was just on did he become a disbeliever in Jesus.

"Turned to iniquity" is what Acts says. Jesus teaches against iniquity; ergo, pretty simple to me that he became a disbeliever.

I don't see how Judas could seriously not believe in Jesus as The Messiah unless he'd witnessed something that convinced him otherwise. As a close follower of Jesus he must have been witness to a number of miracles, and just one would be enough to convince most people. If you knew for a fact that Jesus really did have incredible supernatural powers, who in their right mind would risk eternal damnation by betraying him for some cash? Ridiculous.

The only way the story even begins to make sense is if you take the Gospel of Judas to be part of the story, according to which Jesus commanded Judas to hand him over to the priests of the Sanhedrin. Which doesn't make a lot of sense either, but it makes more sense than the first story.

Jesus told Peter that he would deny him three times in one night just hours before he actually did it...... How could Peter have done such a thing?

Judas' betrayal doesn't make sense to you....that's just how it is. The gnostic's writings were rejected for good reason and I can't understand your attachment to Judas as "hero."

 

[BluePhantom]

Yeah...my focus was just on did he become a disbeliever in Jesus.

"Turned to iniquity" is what Acts says. Jesus teaches against iniquity; ergo, pretty simple to me that he became a disbeliever.

I don't see how Judas could seriously not believe in Jesus as The Messiah unless he'd witnessed something that convinced him otherwise. As a close follower of Jesus he must have been witness to a number of miracles, and just one would be enough to convince most people. If you knew for a fact that Jesus really did have incredible supernatural powers, who in their right mind would risk eternal damnation by betraying him for some cash? Ridiculous.

The only way the story even begins to make sense is if you take the Gospel of Judas to be part of the story, according to which Jesus commanded Judas to hand him over to the priests of the Sanhedrin. Which doesn't make a lot of sense either, but it makes more sense than the first story.

Actually the 4 Gospels say that "Satan" entered Judas right before his betraying Jesus. I don't remember which Gospel says that...I think maybe, Mark?...



-

Actually only two of the Gospels, Luke and John, give that accounting. Mark and Matthew really don't provide an explanation for why Judas chose to betray Jesus and it has led to a lot of speculation.

Just as a minor point of clarification, when you say "the 4 gospels say" it reads as though you suggest it says that in each gospel. You can't take the gospels as one work, because they are all very different, they focus on different things, they are making different points, and they can be very contradictory. I believe that in order to get a good understanding of what is written you have to let each gospel stand as its own work and keep on mind the grand message that the author was trying to convey.

 

[BluePhantom]

How do you study a religion "scientifically"?

You approach it from the perspective of scholarship instead of a believer. I am a man of faith, but I read the Bible in two very different ways. Sometimes I read looking for spiritual guidance and learning, but usually I am conducting research meaning I am not so interested in how scripture applies to my life, but more interested in putting scripture into its proper historical, cultural, and linguistic perspective in an effort to determine what the author was really trying to say instead of simply what it means to me (or want it to mean). This is how Biblical scholars approach it, and afterwards they (or their students) may or may not find some spiritual application for their lives.

 

[BluePhantom]

Belief isn't necessary to religion. Acceptance of some of the tenets of that religion is necessary. Buddhism, for example, is non-theistic. At the same time, it discusses the "truth of suffering and impermanence."

Surely, suffering and impermanence are natural facts of existence.

That depends on the religion and sometimes which perspective within the religion you are looking at. Read Galatians and Romans (specifically Romans 7 and 8) and you will find a very powerful argument from Paul that directly contradict you. This is what is known as the "Pauline Doctrine of Justification Through Faith" and it is largely what modern Christianity is based upon....not works, but faith, not acceptance of the tenants of the Church, but belief.

So it depends

 

[BluePhantom]

You can test it scientifically through observation. All beings die. Plants die. Planets die and come into existence. It's a universal phenomenon. Show me anything in nature you think is ever lasting.

Good luck.

Love

 

[Anonymous1977]

Yeah...my focus was just on did he become a disbeliever in Jesus.

"Turned to iniquity" is what Acts says. Jesus teaches against iniquity; ergo, pretty simple to me that he became a disbeliever.

I don't see how Judas could seriously not believe in Jesus as The Messiah unless he'd witnessed something that convinced him otherwise. As a close follower of Jesus he must have been witness to a number of miracles, and just one would be enough to convince most people. If you knew for a fact that Jesus really did have incredible supernatural powers, who in their right mind would risk eternal damnation by betraying him for some cash? Ridiculous.

The only way the story even begins to make sense is if you take the Gospel of Judas to be part of the story, according to which Jesus commanded Judas to hand him over to the priests of the Sanhedrin. Which doesn't make a lot of sense either, but it makes more sense than the first story.

Actually the 4 Gospels say that "Satan" entered Judas right before his betraying Jesus. I don't remember which Gospel says that...I think maybe, Mark?...



-

Actually only two of the Gospels, Luke and John, give that accounting. Mark and Matthew really don't provide an explanation for why Judas chose to betray Jesus and it has led to a lot of speculation.

Just as a minor point of clarification, when you say "the 4 gospels say" it reads as though you suggest it says that in each gospel. You can't take the gospels as one work, because they are all very different, they focus on different things, they are making different points, and they can be very contradictory. I believe that in order to get a good understanding of what is written you have to let each gospel stand as its own work and keep on mind the grand message that the author was trying to convey.

Yeah...looks like you misunderstood me BP.




-

 

[Dhara]

You can test it scientifically through observation. All beings die. Plants die. Planets die and come into existence. It's a universal phenomenon. Show me anything in nature you think is ever lasting.

Good luck.

Love

Good answer. Consider though, that love is a feeling and a state of mind and it isn't always evident, 24/7, 365 a year.

 

[Dhara]

How do you study a religion "scientifically"?

You approach it from the perspective of scholarship instead of a believer. I am a man of faith, but I read the Bible in two very different ways. Sometimes I read looking for spiritual guidance and learning, but usually I am conducting research meaning I am not so interested in how scripture applies to my life, but more interested in putting scripture into its proper historical, cultural, and linguistic perspective in an effort to determine what the author was really trying to say instead of simply what it means to me (or want it to mean). This is how Biblical scholars approach it, and afterwards they (or their students) may or may not find some spiritual application for their lives.

That's scholarship but not the scientific method.

 

[Anonymous1977]

How do you study a religion "scientifically"?

You approach it from the perspective of scholarship instead of a believer. I am a man of faith, but I read the Bible in two very different ways. Sometimes I read looking for spiritual guidance and learning, but usually I am conducting research meaning I am not so interested in how scripture applies to my life, but more interested in putting scripture into its proper historical, cultural, and linguistic perspective in an effort to determine what the author was really trying to say instead of simply what it means to me (or want it to mean). This is how Biblical scholars approach it, and afterwards they (or their students) may or may not find some spiritual application for their lives.

Yeah...by "studying a religion scientifically" I meant just studying it to learn what it teaches & it contents before, or not even necessarily for the purpose of determining whether or not I will be, believing in it; but even maybe, just studying it just to know it...believing or not believing in a religion, one might say obviously, comes after knowing that religion, unless one has been brainwashed and is therefore maybe not even a true believer...




-