Myschae - the "issue" under discussion was NOT Christianity, per se. What WAS the "premise" was that a person known by the name of Jesus of Nazareth actually and truly existed as a real, live, person. In other words, he was not a "myth" or "mythical" person.

The claims that He made and the things that He did are other issues, and they pertain to the Christian faith.

Perhaps it would be easier to simply quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica on this matter.

Quoting from the book Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell, page 87:

The latest edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica uses 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, or Napoleon Bonaparte.

Concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, it records:

"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, durning the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." (Encyclopaedia Britannica. 15th edition, 1974)

The "historicity" of Jesus has never been in "dispute" until people wanted to find a reason to NOT consider what he said and did and the implications THAT might have on their lives. As the Encyclopaedia correctly pointed out, those "disputes" were inadequately grounded as it pertains to "disproving" that Jesus actually existed.


Establishing that Jesus existed is NOT the same thing as proving that he is God incarnate, but it does fix in time the actual existence of such a person, and that person also made some claims and did some things that can also be examined, and accepted or rejected by each of us. That's a different subject, though, than whether or not the person Jesus of Nazareth actually existed as a real historical figure.





Cool! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> Then there is hope for you yet!! Grin! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />





No, we can't really do that. But it's an interesting attempt anyway, especially since one of the "beliefs" of atheism is that there is no heaven or he11.

So the "logic" in that could also be "if an atheist were found in He11, that would render Atheism false because the basic premise of Atheism is that NOTHING survives death and the person "remains in the grave" for all eternity.

Though people can "dispute" the Atheist or the Christian postition relative to what happens to the person who dies, that has no bearing on the issue of the existence of Jesus as a particular person at a particular point in historical time.





Nothing other than the issue of your eternal soul's destination. It may be "easier" to deny the existence of an eternal soul that survives physical death of the body, but that's not "awful" for Christianity or for Christians. That issue will be definitively answered for each of us when we die.




Not at all. My "issue" if you want to call it that, was your "ridiculing" of people who do believe as if their beliefs are so "weird" and "unfounded" that they "tickle you" who "know better" (as if Atheism has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt) and are humorous because of their naiveté.





Ahhh...an "easy" question. Christians believe in the only way by which we can be forgiven of our sins and receive salvation and eternity with God rather than eternity separated from God. It is the eternal separation from God that is "worth avoiding."






Absolutely not, and you know that. There are lots of people who "profess" a belief in Jesus Christ who more than likely are NOT truly born again believers. I personally much prefer people to take a principled stance, even if it's against Christ, especially if they choose to live by a moral code that is in concert with what God has said is the "better way to live" anyway.

For example, the 2nd "greatest commandment" has nothing to do with salvation, but everything to do with how we live in relation to other humans. It is the basis of things like the "Golden Rule."


Lastly, thanks for the website info and the link. I appreciate that and may "check it out" when I have the time.

Br,

Thank you for this post. I do understand your intent and sincerity and I thank I need to thank you for a totally different perspective that actually takes a burden off me.

I did indeed think I was his rescuer, his incentive to quit (he did say that had something to do with it, but he quit because he wanted to) and that he is weak and with me so I can be his strength and continue to enable him to be weak.

Now that you called a spade a spade, and he confirmed what you said (guess we are still not communicating or I don't get things straight) I feel relived.

He is not living with me because I "rescued him" and out of a sense of duty. He is strong enough to be sober w/o me. I have much more respect for that then thinking it is me that keeps him sober. He has free will now that he is sober to make other choices but he wants our marriage.

So I won't take the credit and now I don't feel responsible or like a "mother" which I have always resented even though I chose to play that role.

And I feel better about him as a stronger person than I was giving him credit for.

Sometimes it just takes me awhile to absorb, and right now I am brain-dead after school and trying to get 20 kids to behave.

The theological stuff-I am not well read or researched enough to carry on a debate, mine is just a "feeling" I get that this sometimes feels like a fairy tale. Even though at one point I think I actually had a spiritual experience.

When my youngest son was born with a heart defect and had open heart surgery at 2 mos, I was a basket case. As they put him on cart and rolled him down hall to surgery I looked at him and to this day thought that his eyes had the look of an adult and looked at me with a look that said "I will be ok", a 2 mos expression could not register that, it was as if his eyes were not his.

Now that was 25 yrs ago and I am not sure if I have just imagined all that and exaggerated it over the years, but it felt like it then or so I thought.

Well I cry when I relive that, I would go through any A over that experience but I do appreciate all the help everyone offers andknow all of you mean well.

Thank you all
Lindy

And yes, I have been looking for outs to make it acceptable
to make me feel better about myself, but I see that was not right either.

MEDC,

Thank you for your kind words. I hope I find my answers, too.

Mys

FH,


The "issue" under discussion was my use of your proposition to demonstrate fundamental logical reasoning as a tool to evaluate correctness.

Your statement "Jesus existed is beyond dispute" is a logical fallacy which I have proven using a proof by contradiction. Ergo, anything that is "beyond dispute" must not actually be disputed. Once again, that has no bearing on the truth of the premise of your statement "Jesus existed." It only shows that Jesus's existence cannot be proven to be beyond dispute. The fallacy of your proposition only shows that your assertion of "beyond dispute" is incorrect - and therefore your argument falls apart under basic, logical scrutiny.


That still doesn't make your proposition that Jesus's existence is "beyond dispute" any more true. Actually, your quote disproves that by talking about when the disputes emerged. Your opinions about why they emerged is a completely different thing.

Look, I'm actually not all that convinced that Jesus belongs in the "legend" category. That's just where I left him because I've run out of time. It's sort of the default position with regards to my world view. My intent was never to prove by your statement that Jesus didn't exist... but only to illustrate an elementary logic concept. In fact, my whole approach started out with the assumption that your premise IS true. You could quite comfortably rest on that laurel and stop arguing about His existence with me because in my example, I held that your original premise "Jesus existed" was to be assumed to be true.

The logical exercise was to evaluate the implication "is beyond dispute." As much as people on here talk about the benefits of using logic, I really am confused by all this brouhaha about its application.

Your statement "Jesus existed is beyond dispute" was proven false. No information was offered about the validity or invalidity about your original premise "Jesus exists" because no information from your statement affects it.


Well, exactly right. That would be a proof by contradiction. The only real problem with this reasoning is that the "rules" of atheism aren't quite as uniformly defined as the rules of Christianity. Which is just to say that there may be belief systems that exist that believe in Heaven or He!! like places but do not also believe in a deity. For example, ancestor worship implies an afterlife but no over rulling deity. Would that make it a form of atheism?

I picked on Christianity specifically because it does have some fairly well defined rules and is much more consistent that way then non-theistic belief systems. And, by the way, if you're considering arguments about merits, then certainly being well defined would be considered a merit for a belief system.


Right.


Once again, I'm scratching my head. I'm not sure it really is easier to believe that existence stops at death. It sorta makes loosing loved ones pretty harrowing. I've said many, many times that I see that Christianity offers comforts to people - one of them being the prospect of reuniting with loved ones for eternity.

The weirdest part of this whole thing is that my position is that I can see why belief/faith is positive and helpful to people. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that such faith exists. I've seen many examples of it in people I highly respect. You seem a bit hung up because someone's comment amused me slightly -- but I've often expressed deep respect for the very real faith I've seen in people's lives.

I'm not trying to avoid it, I'm trying to understand it. As I child I wondered why I was different from the people around me who believed. I still don't really know. I just know that I don't.


Oh, for pity's sake. I said something tickled me. Like I said earlier, that is hardly lobbing a boulder in your direction. Frankly, it's pretty mild compared to what I've seen said about "unbelievers" around here. If you're so sensitive that me being a little amused about one comment sets your knickers in a knot, then feel free to put me on ignore. I'm not going to pander to this hyperbolic trantrum.


This seems to answer the opposite of my question...


Well, now that's more congruent with the FH I thought I knew.

You and I have talked a lot ... about this and other subjects. I'm not out gunning for you, FH. I used one of your statements to simply demonstrate an example of logical reasoning -- which, if I remember right, you often recommend to people (using logic, not emotion). I used it partially because of our long talks and because I thought you'd appreciate the point of using logic (correctly) to discern truth or fallacy.

Your logic in that one statement was flawed. It doesn't mean you've been entirely invalidated nor is it meant to ridicule you. It's an exercise in rigorous thinking. So, you committed a logical fallacy - the world hasn't ended. Go find a better/different proof or method.

(end of threadjack on my part - thanks Lindysue for the use of your thread. May your journey lead you to peace and prosperity.)

Mys

Your friendly, logical, neighborhood atheist*

*actually, I'm not really very logical/sequential -- I'm much more emotional/intuitive but I have studied logic.

hey, FH and myshae...

LindySue's question was actually pretty simple. She wasn't asking if God exists, she really just wanted to blame God for her husband's choices. She's already recognized this mistake.

This is a good debate...but is way over the top for this thread, do you think?

Yes, I'm done. FH can have the last word if he chooses to do so. My main focus was on using logic rather than emotion or "comfort zone" as a method of discernment. Logic and reasoning would seem to suggest that the alcoholism that you've discussed is playing a major role in what happened. I'll leave that to you folks who know a lot more about what to do about that than I do.

Once again, LindySue, thank you for the use of your thread.

Mys

Lindy,

You rawk....girl. Not a bad debate for your first thread ever.

Glad you're open to hearing new thoughts and ideas. Sorry for postin' and runnin' but Mr. Romance is taking me out to see Ocean's 13 ... at the dollar theatre! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Chat later....and thanks for the insights, everyone. I, too have learned alot.

Ace

Lindy, you are strong and good and in the moment. All talk of theism aside, you were never to blame. We do choose what we do. You seem like someone that has a steady mind and a good heart. I'm rooting for you.
Peace & best wishes,
SL

LindySue ~

Remind yourself that you do not have to justify your choice to stay in your marriage to anyone but yourself and perhaps your children. If your husband is home, in no-contact and not drinking, then there is nothing "bad" about your decision. Those who judge are those who have never walked a mile in your shoes.

God is not an easy concept for most people, especially for those of us who were abused with religion in the past...

Al-Anon can help you regain a spiritual connection with God, however you choose to understand him. It will also help strengthen you in the face of the inevitable challenges that come with recovery. I remember Steve telling me at the time, that even if my husband did straighten up and come home, that he would be so clumsy..and do so much damage, that our marriage could not recover. Steve was right...about the first part. My husband is still terribly clumsy. Fortunately, I had a wonderful 12 step program, and wonderful sponsor and a budding relationship with the God of MY understanding - that helped and continue to help carry me through every day.

I really encourage you to seek out a meeting, a place for you to seek help and comfort in anonymity outside of your marriage. Your recovery will need it!

BR, I am not sure about wanting to blame God for my H's mistake, I just thought he if does exist for us, maybe it was his will to make him see the error of his ways, the drinking, the A, everything, therein was my pondering of "the no accidents in life thing"- sort of it was God's will. But I am still not sure about any of the above, just know that I have been grasping for answers to his A so I can live with it.

But taking the burden of alcohol and seeing that he is the strong one doing this himself and not me, makes me see him differently and am gaining some new respect for him. And I can take my misguided halo off and take care of me. So that perspective I got from you BR and thanks.

Myschae, the questions we are asking, well I just understand you in that respect and I, too, just don't know enought. That is why I say most people accept it on "faith" and that is ok and works for them.

Lindysue ~ you can be 100% sure that God loves your husband and wants him to heal and see the error of his ways.

Your husband has free will and a choice about this. So until your husband chooses - all you can do is pray to God to change his heart and heal his soul.

We have no children together, but he has 4 and I have 3, all grown. From the day I asked him about A it was over and he has never had any C or wanted to, I know, or at least think between him, MC and me talking that this was a "I am worthless as a man, my wife left me, got fired, I drink, I have PTSD, and I could care less about life and mad as ****** that my wife had the guts to leave me and I am going to "use" the needy, easy OW to try and make me feel like a man again", which it did not. So to prove to himself (now I know it was not my rescue and I like that) he is a man of character and remorse, he will quit drinking and prove to me how much he can NOW love me as he sees me w/o alcohol and to prove he is worth my love in return. A lot of work, I have my own issues about myself to work on, too.

Many thanks to all who have read and contributed, whether we agree or disagree, it is being open to others' thoughts that count. And now I have to get ready and face those 20 5 yr olds and "whip" them into shape. Not literally, those days are gone.
Lindy

Nice try Myschae, and thank you, for the "last word." Most magnanimous of you. Your "main focus" was NOT, in my opinion, focusing on logic. It was on attacking God and Christianity when people tried to answer Lindysue's questions about whether or not there was some "directing force acting with a purpose BEHIND the choice to commit adultery, thereby rendering adultery an "accident" because people don't "really" have free will."













People responded. My original answer to her question that accidents DO happen was insufficient for lindysue. She wanted to know the WHY, or if there was a "why," behind the simple answer that accidents DO happen. She further narrowed the scope of her question from the more general, all-inclusive, "do anyaccidents happen?" to the more narrow and specific example of a CHOICE to commit adultery and whether or not there was some "cosmic force" that controlled the "WHY" in "why was an affair chosen," asking if there was something "more" beyond just selfish, self-centered, choice by the adulterer.

When someone CHOOSES, it is by default no longer an "accident." Asking if Adultery is an accident is the equivalent of thinking that someone just found themselves in Hong Kong when they were supposed to be in Chicago. Now, could someone have mistakenly boarded the wrong airplane in LA and found themselves taken to Hong Kong instead of Chicago? It's possible, and boarding the wrong plane by mistake (by accident) can happen. But if you CHOOSE to go to Hong Kong, even though you were supposed to go to Chicago, that choice is NOT an accident. That is an act of WILL.

But the question Lindysue was asking was even deeper than that. She wanted to know if there was "cosmic person or force" that was "dictating" that an Affair take place in order to "teach some lesson or lessons."

So she stated the PURPOSE of her question for herself:

[color:"blue"] just curious as to what people think this means. [/color]


Two people responded with what THEY think, as lindysue asked, and explained their thoughts concerning how some "cosmic force or power" might relate to her question.


The along comes ChrisBlues with his ONE "contribution to lindysue's question":


That ChrisBlues made it clear that he is Anti-God is self-evident. That he sought to END any answer to Lindysue that might say what they think, IF it involves God in any way, is also self-evident.



Lest there be any doubt as to his motives let's review just two of his postings from other MB forums that motive him and HIS attempt to answer lindysue's question as to "why?".


The only "help" ChrisBlues wants is some kind of "peace in his life" WITHOUT God. But of course, it's just an "accident" that he hates the thought of God and fantasizes about other women and can't CHOOSE to be "committed exclusively."


So that led ChrisBlues to another post on his "Greener Pastures" thread:


Am I surprised that he thinks "we both deserve the chance of true happiness and both of us might be better off with someone else"? Not on your life. Accountable to no one, he is his own "god" and defines the "Wayward Spouse" mentality, yet he has the audacity to attempt to silence those who are trying to help LindySue with her question, who happen to believe in God and how God relates to our lives as human beings.

Want more "proof" that ChrisBlues COLORS his comments as only a person with an "Adulterer's Mindset" can, especially one that is hostile to God (perhaps because God is rather clear about sex outside of marriage)?


HERE we find ChrisBlues' real answer to Lindysue; it's NO accident. He is making conscious CHOICES and clearly stating he WANTS to see "Other Women" if he can figure out how to make it "easier" to do.

But rather than say that, he comes on Lindysue's thread attacking all members of faith who are honestly trying to answer Lindysue's inquiry.



Myschae, YOUR contribution to the discussion, which Lindysue seemed to be enjoying and finding a little helpful up to that point, was to immediately come on arguing AGAINST Christianity and pushing an anti-Christian, pro-Atheistic book. This was a DIRECT attack against Christ and Christianity and NOT an attempt to answer Lindysue's original question.


Lindysue "pounced" on your atheistic stance and agreed with you when she posted: " Good,
Another view, more a little in line with my beliefs in that I have always asked "if God gets credit for miracles-why not the same for the bad stuff"?

Her question; "if God gets credit for miracles-why not the same for the bad stuff?" is a THEOLOGICAL question that an Atheist cannot answer. Remember, there IS no God to an atheist, so the question would be both irrelevant and nonsensical to put to an Atheist. The question is directed to, and only makes sense if put to a person who believes in God, and specifically to this thread's discussion to date, the "Christian God."


Then you went and made your "tickles you" post, to which I responded:


You make an outright attack on Christian belief and on God Himself and NOW you are back to "crying foul" that I am the "problem" here and that discussion about God is the "problem" and never gets anywhere? You speak about God and things you don't understand and then run from discussion. So let me simply say, hopefully for your benefit, that God IS responsible for some things that you might consider "bad." He was responsible, directly, for the Flood, for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, for the Plagues of Eqypt, for many things, and will also be responsible for the Final Judgment of Mankind, including the destruction of Earth by fire. God was NOT responsible for Eve's CHOICE of disobedience but He was responsible for being the provider of the one and only way to be reconciled to Him and reestablish a "right relationship" with Him.


Myschae, I really am getting tired of this sort of condescension and gas lighting that you used, beginning with this opening post from you and continuing for the rest of the thread.

LOGIC? There is NO logic in your position. It all stems from a presupposition that you hold that there is no God, and that presupposition is based entirely in your own opinion with NO proof that atheism is true other than your CHOICE to reject both the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and that ANYTHING "theological" might be true. You can choose to "dispute" anything you want to, but it has NO bearing on the truth, logically or otherwise. Truth stands independent from opinion, even "disputing" opinion in the face of evidence FOR the existence of Jesus. All it (disputing as you propose) does is obfuscate in order to foster the OPINION that God does not even exist, and THAT was the clear "objective" of your postings, not to help Lindysue with an answer to a fairly simple question.

Suggestion: why don't you argue for, and explain to Lindysue, the benefits of Atheism as a concept and how it applies to lifestyle choices rather than attack Christians and Christianity and "giggle" about your attacks? APPLY Atheism to her question about accidents in general and adultery in specific. If there IS NO GOD and all things are without any "overarching" meaning or purpose, how does that apply to her question?

Believers in Christ, or anything else, can do the same (as they WERE doing until ChrisBlues and you decided to post anti-God rebuttals attacking God and snickering (excuse me, being "tickled") and NOT offering the application of Atheism or "Waywardism" to Lindysue's question, and Lindysue can evaluate all of the information for herself.

So low,
Thanks for the support and a very nice way to start my day.
Lindy

FH,
I have not read Chris' other posts so don't know his history. But I think you are being hard on Myschae (but then I don't know history of other posts either). We don't have the answers, you believe you do and that is good for YOU, just let us keep looking and questioning w/o criticism-I think that is all we are trying to do. Your post was so lengthy, I will have to read again later. I am in kinder mode and this may be way too deep for me to tread.
Plus I think when someone has a certain sense of humor like Myschae and myself, we know we can push buttons on people truly committed and absolute like you. NOt that my buttons can't be pushed, my PA husband is a master at it.

I do appreciate you trying to state the premise of my thread to begin with.







Lindy

Lindysue, I am being "hard" on Myschae in this instance because she chose to attack Christianity rather than answer your question as to why what she "believes" can answer your question of the "why" regarding infidelity.

And yes, Myschae and I do have a "history" of this sort of discussion. I like Myschae and Myschae is a very intelligent young woman who has often had a lot of good things to say to help others, but she has an "aversion" to anything related to God. That is both her right and her choice. Obviously, if the mere existence of Jesus of Nazareth can be eliminated, the entire foundation of Christianity would fold up, BECAUSE Christianity IS "all about Christ" and WHY God created humans.

But the question you asked was for all thoughts from all members as to how it relates to infidelity so that YOU could evaluate and make your own choices about "what made sense" out of the various proposed answers.

I am being "hard" on ChrisBlues because he CHOOSES to act on his feelings and he KNOWS that God does NOT approve of his choices nor does God "make" infidelity happen to teach anyone anything. I am not even sure why ChrisBlues posts on MB or what he thinks he might be getting from MB, since he was divorced and pursuing "getting what he wants" long before he even joined MB as a member. The quotes from his previous postings that I referenced show clearly that he does NOT believe in MB related concepts, to say nothing of "God's commands."


Here is my opinion, based on Scripture: God DOES use circumstances in our lives to teach us things, specifically the NEED for God and the benefits that come from humble obedience to God. The specific reference, should you ever want to look it up for youself, is Romans 8:28-29.

Lindy,
I just keep thinking about you & your existential crisis. My mind is settled, so I am at peace with the theism bit. And it really doesn't matter what I think. In a sense, no matter which way you go on this, the A is the WH's choice.
Theism: Ostensibly, god gives us free will, and although he/she/it knows what we will choose, we still choose.
Atheism: There is no god to direct me, I am made of neurons that fire, and quantum mechanics has certainly raised the possibility that hard determinism is not true.
I think that either way, we can say that an A is the infidel's choice.
And I continue to read your thread with admiration. I love that you have really been thinking and grappling with the hardest of questions. You really are strong and on a good path.
Peace & tranquility,
SoLow

SoLow - excellent summation!

Infidelity IS a choice.

The "learning" that comes as a result can be "positive" or "negative," but the ACT that resulted in the consequences was a CHOICE, not an accident, by the WS.

The "learning," likewise is most often a choice too, that is made by both the WS and the BS, but like the affair itself is often governed by emotions and emotional reactions rather than rational thought and application of a "positive" rather than "negative" nature.

God bless.

[color:"green"] ME, TOO ~ Rooting for you!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Ace [/color] <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />