Author Topic: Jesus' resurrection  (Read 3266 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Petey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 882
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #29 on: October 14, 2011, 07:37:17 AM »
Wow! Was that as good for everyone else as it was for me? I need a cigarette.  ;-)

You're welcome and thank you.   ;D

Cool. You guys are really engaged here on this forum. Nice to see you're passionate about your beliefs.
[snip]
I know I was not specific to your comments, and I apologize. I'm short on time this evening, but will be back with specific comments...if you're willing to listen. If not..... oh well...your choice. But I will pray to the One true God in heaven for you guys and gals tonight. be back in a bit.......adios

This has got to be either poe or someone under the age of 20.
He never pays attention, he always knows the answer, and he can never tell you how he knows. We can't keep thrashing him. He is a bad example to the other pupils. There's no educating a smart boy.
-– Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #30 on: October 14, 2011, 07:53:52 AM »
b2:

Quote
Cmon lads, you can do better than that.

lads ? for christ sakes, could you be any more condescending you fool ?

Is it very jesus like to be drunk with your feelings of superiority over us "lads and gals" ?

If you're here to patronize us, then you can fuck off...we're not interested.

All the best,

Cheers mate  :)

 
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2011, 09:32:05 AM »

Is it fair for me to assume that the bible is a huge problem for the Athiest? For some reason, it is disregarded as some novel devised by man? To what end? I can't follow the logic but am eager to find out what specific problems you have with it.

Cheers!! God Bless You!!

Now that I've got that out of the way, a comment on the above is necessary.

Yes, you would assume correct. As a matter of fact, it was reading and studying the bible that was the primary driving force for many of us in moving to the atheist position.

The current bible is what it is. But the ancient old and new testament texts are the private Hebrew/Jewish works ( a multi-diary of sorts ) and amalgamation of pieces of literature that clearly consist of being historical fiction for the Hebrews/Jews only. These texts ended up being a massive collection of myths, allegories, metaphors, inconsistencies, contradictions, absurdities, ghost writing, forgeries, false claims, and historical tidbits used as a race and culture specific guide to explain their existence as a people, what they thought the future holds, and how they should behave in the present and future.

The bible in its current completed form, and after having some books rejected as heretical and unfit for inclusion, was plagiarized from the above stated works of the Jews and then edited, changed, and then finally came to us at the discretion of simpler minds from Catholicism in the fourth century and claimed to be the inspired word of god for all.

This fact creates a problem for the bible in itself and is inconsistent with a book that is supposed to be inerrant and divinely inspired or written by a god itself. Why does a book take 300 years to surface, after the fact, if it's so important to the entire human race and supposedly inspired and demanded to be read by an all powerful god ? What about the lost 300 years and all those lost souls ? Ouch.

The very race that the bible depicts rejects the bible itself and this of course creates a serious problem for the validity, acceptability, and truth of that book today.

The simple fact is that the bible came when it did and reads just as it should as a book being formed by a power hungry credulous species that are about a half a chromosome away from being chimpanzee...... The bible was needed at the time it was developed to help suppress and control the masses and usher in a new age of political power for religion. Sadly, we're still seeing the harmful fruits of its spurious doctrines in the world 18 centuries later.

Cheers  ;)
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 09:43:29 AM by gonegolfing »
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Darwins +13/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2011, 09:35:10 AM »
Sound bytes are cool, but not logical.
So..if you can't respond to something intelligently, just call it a sound byte. I will remember that.

Quote
Next, There's no way that I am going to convince you that you are wrong. I am not capable of that. All i can do is provide evidence that I feel proves the existence of God.
Which god?

Quote
Either way, you have the freedom to choose. God made you that way. You don't have to believe in HIM. You are exercising that right here on this forum. You may find it hard to believe, but he is bummed out about that, cause he'd rather have you spend eternity with him...but he won't dishonor your right to choose.  You will have to be accountable for your decision, but you know that already...
It isn't really freedom to choose if there is a negative consequence imposed for one of the choices.

How is this for succinct...Either no gods or supreme beings exist or they do not interact or intervene in this universe or our world in any demonstrable way and are therefore irrelevant.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2011, 10:19:02 AM »
Getting back to the OP.

I was wondering was there something like this back when jesus was put on the cross that would cause hm to be the same as this religion does and still does today.

Yes, there's a theory from the 1970s (not 1700s) laid out about that by Hugh J. Schonfield who called it The Passover Plot.

Amazon -- The Passover Plot
Wikipedia -- The Passover Plot

In C.S. Lewis' trichotomy of Liar, Lunatic or Lord, Schonfield cames down on Liar and Lunatic without wanting to put it so harshly.  He still thought of Jesus as a great moral teacher.  I haven't read that book but I read his Those Incredible Christians.

When I was in Sunday school or parochial school one or more of the teachers said that when the Roman soldiers were crucifying people they were trying to be humane about it.  They gave the victims vinegar laced with wormwood and gall because those were painkillers.  Breaking someone's legs after several hours was also done to shorten the victims' pain.

"Cap'n, I wish you'd stop being so nice to me," said Cool Hand Luke.

As best as I know it, his theory goes that Jesus wanted to be accepted as the Messiah.  He had the idea that if he could pull off a real biggie stunt the public would flock to him.  The telling points are:

Quote
Matthew 27:33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.

Matthew 27:48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.  The rest said, "Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him." Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Mark 15:36 And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, "Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down." And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

John 19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Now some have said that since the Roman soldiers were famous for their discipline, discipline means honesty.  Sorry, they were famous for their discipline in basic training, administration and the line of battle.  Roman soldiers had a banking system with retirement accounts.  They were given land and citizenship in the country of their last duty post but so social security.  They had to build up funds from looting to pay for retirement.  They were bribable.

As as I understand Schonfield, the executioners were bribed to have a special bucket of vinegar just for Jesus.  Matthew partially gives it away with his idea that the drug was gall, but it wasn't it was something much more powerful.  Jesus refused it because he wasn't ready.  When Jesus finally asked for it 2 gospels say someone had to run and get the special doped vinegar.  All agree he had just taken a drink of that when he passed out.  The failure to break his legs (why not do it anyway just for fun?) was part of the bribe.  Then some soldier who wasn't in on it said more or less, "Let's give him a poke to make sure" and speared him.

But Jesus did survive for a day and a half.  He stumbled out of tomb and scared a bunch of people.  Then he died.  But that was enough to start the legend.

I think I've made an honest exposition of the theory here.  As I said on a Fido Net forum 12 years ago there are some things wrong with it:

    1) Josephus once persuaded a Roman general to uncrucify 3 of Josephus' friends.  Only 1 survived.
    2) Writing to the guy on the forum, a medic from Vietnam, I said he should have considered that before the era of antibiotics how often a deep wound produced gangrene.
    3) Crucifixion would produce crippling injuries.

Given these considerations I don't see how someone could plan on letting the Romans crucify him as a stunt and expect to survive OK.

Having read Schonfield's other book as well, "cherry picking" doesn't do his technique justice.  He jumped around  back and forth to gather sentences as snatches of sentences in such a haphazard way that did not inspire me to trust his judgement.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2011, 10:27:07 AM »
Makes me think of weekend at bernies.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2011, 10:41:23 AM »
It isn't really freedom to choose if there is a negative consequence imposed for one of the choices.

b2 -  Imagine if you will: Living in 1200 Germany, the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church in Europe. They offer freedom of Religion: Be a Catholic or have all your assets siezed by the church, be tortured until you "confess" to being a "witch," and be executed for your Heretical "beliefs."

Or as it is in Exodus: YHWH has given us freedom of religion[1]! You can choose to tollow Moses and YHWH or you can choose not to. If you choose to follow Moses/YHWH you will get to live a long life,[2] those who choose not to, will be immediately executed. Make your Choice.

This is not freewill or Freedom of Religion it is Coercion. Human beings are living creatures, a basic instinct is 'do what it takes to survive.' When you make the choice to survive or die, they're going to pick the 'survive' choice. So therefore this is NOT a choice. Anytime you're given a "choice," look to see if there is a bribe/reward or consequence associated with any of them. Cross them out. What's left are your choices. Choice 1: Heaven, cross it out. Choice 2: Hell, cross it out. What's left? Nothing. ie. No Choice. Even if there was only one, the 'survive' choice, it is still not a choice, because there's only one.

In America thare's mostly Freedom of Religion. I can choose to be Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Muslim, Wiccan, anything or nothing. What will happen to me depending on my choice? Legally, nothing. If I don't want to, I don't have to, and I am NOT punished for it. This is freedom and allowance of freewill. So, if I had to choose, I'd say George Washington loves me more than YHWH. Since I was born almost 200 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, it is obvious he would ever know me, or love me. I think that puts the whole thing about God "loving" me in perspective.
 1. freewill.
 2. well 'long' compared to >>

Offline b2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Darwins +0/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2011, 10:47:52 AM »
Gonegolfing,

Lads is simply a term I use instead of guys. It's not intended to be condescending.

Seeing you don't know me, I would imagine something was said or done to you by someone else for you to react to me that way.

It's oK man. I forgive you.....I'm pretty sure that's Jesus Like....

Now that we have that out of the way...

The bible "is" exactly what it is. A portion of the very race it depicts does reject it indeed. But not all Jews reject it. There are  also many converts to Christianity from all walks of life. So the fact that you studied the bible, and then now don't choose to believe doesn't surprise me. It didn't Surprise Jesus either that many would question his teachings or reject him. That is clearly documented in the bible. 

:-)

JTK73

The one and only true God of course. Is there another?

I believe it is freedom of choice regardless of the consequences. I think you're saying if there is a negative consequence, an individual would be more likely to not choose the thing with the negative consequence. But that didn't stop you from choosing to not believe in God did it?

I believe you meant to say, God has not interacted in a way that is satisfactory to "me". Because he clearly intervened by sending Christ into the world. But you have exercised your freedom to not believe it.

Petey, I am honored that you have seen me as child like.

Then he said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.

And I do believe you eagerly await evidence, because you really do want to believe in something. We all do, including me. Because like Paul said, if there is no death and resurrection of Christ, we are all doomed. But the truth is in front of you. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the light. Truth is found in a person. Not my words, but God's.

Aaron 123....I must admit, I admire your approach and demeanor. Nice meeting you here.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2011, 10:52:19 AM »
Evidence of GOD, let me ask a basic question..why do you not accept the bible as a historical document when it has been proven to be very accurate. I will get one of many sources for you soon.

No, you won't since nothing supports the bible as being a very accurate historical document.  I'm sure you'll try to claim that since cities and people who are documentable are mentioned in this bible of yours, that's means its "true".  However, that would make any modern political thriller novel "true" too.

You seem to be one more willfully ignorant Christian who is all sure that their and only their version of their religon is the "right" one.   

I was once a Christian, then realized from reading the bible and from evidence that the bible is nonsense.  No genesis, no flood, no exodus, no resurrection and no hopefully sadistic nonsense for the "end times". 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2011, 10:52:53 AM »

The one and only true God of course. Is there another?

Krishna, Allah, Baal, Enki, Amun... etc ad infinitum.

That's why he asked.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2011, 10:56:18 AM »
Petey, I am honored that you have seen me as child like.

Then he said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.

There's something about "childlike faith," you see, children belive in imaginary stuff like Santa, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Ghosts, Monster under the Bed, Monster in the Closet, etc. Why? A) They're told to, so they believe whatever crap they're told. B) They make shit up on thier own because they don't understand the difference between reality and imagination.

Edit: You don't still believe in Santa do you? If not, why? The evidence is all around you he's real, especially during Christmas. Could you just imagine a 5 year old, after sitting on Santa's lap, telling him what they wanted to get for Christmas, getting thier picture taken with Santa, then bounding with joy going back to thier Mom and/or Dad, and then you telling that child that there's no Santa? Seriously! It's so frikking obvious there IS a Santa! They even track him on RADAR! Sheesh. Not believing in Santa is a Belief after all.

« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 11:06:52 AM by TruthSeeker »

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4353
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #40 on: October 14, 2011, 10:57:44 AM »
I believe it is freedom of choice regardless of the consequences. I think you're saying if there is a negative consequence, an individual would be more likely to not choose the thing with the negative consequence. But that didn't stop you from choosing to not believe in God did it?

Hi, b2:  This is an interesting take on the matter.  Do you think that to believe something or not believe something is actually a choice that an individual can make?  For example, if I tell you that leprechauns live in my closet and give you no evidence, could you "choose" to believe me anyway?
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4733
  • Darwins +537/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #41 on: October 14, 2011, 11:30:43 AM »
I'm responding to certain segments of this, even though they weren't directed at me.

The bible "is" exactly what it is. A portion of the very race it depicts does reject it indeed. But not all Jews reject it. There are  also many converts to Christianity from all walks of life. So the fact that you studied the bible, and then now don't choose to believe doesn't surprise me. It didn't Surprise Jesus either that many would question his teachings or reject him. That is clearly documented in the bible.
There are many converts to Islam, or to Hinduism, from all walks of life.  The fact that Christianity (and other religions for that matter) also has converts from all walks of life doesn't give it any special significance.  And sure, the Bible is what it is, a book written by humans, edited by humans, and translated by humans.  Even if it were initially inspired by God, the original versions are long gone, and there's been too many changes made to the Bible (which have been verified by Christian scholars) to be able to determine what the originals might have said for sure.

The one and only true God of course. Is there another?
Funny, the Jews never had a problem acknowledging that other gods existed[1].  It's only Christians who insist that there's only one true God, and all the other deities worshiped by humans are either false or demons in disguise.  So here's a proposition for you; if Christianity has validity, other religions have validity as well.  If other religions do not have validity, then neither does Christianity.  That's straight from the Golden Rule says, treat others as you wish to be treated.  If you don't, then you have no basis to expect anything different from them.

I believe it is freedom of choice regardless of the consequences. I think you're saying if there is a negative consequence, an individual would be more likely to not choose the thing with the negative consequence. But that didn't stop you from choosing to not believe in God did it?
Yes, freedom of choice means accepting the consequences of that choice.  But those consequences have to be real and verifiable.  If someone is told not to go somewhere because monsters will eat them, and there are no monsters there, then the consequences are not real.  That is the position of atheists; they are being told of these consequences, but nobody can actually say that the consequences actually exist.  They can only point to the Bible as the source, which is not convincing unless you already believe in the Bible.

I believe you meant to say, God has not interacted in a way that is satisfactory to "me". Because he clearly intervened by sending Christ into the world. But you have exercised your freedom to not believe it.
Saying that God intervened by sending Jesus into the world is anecdotal hearsay.  You are basing it on something you heard from someone else, not something you yourself have witnessed, thus hearsay.  And you are essentially basing it off of a single book; the fact that you believe that the book is accurate, or that the book says it's accurate, does not prove it is accurate.  There is a dearth of other evidence relating to the life of Jesus, and much of it is contradictory; the fact that the Council of Nicea had to decide what to include in the 'official' Bible demonstrates that, even without doing a textual analysis of the Bible itself.

And I do believe you eagerly await evidence, because you really do want to believe in something. We all do, including me. Because like Paul said, if there is no death and resurrection of Christ, we are all doomed. But the truth is in front of you. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the light. Truth is found in a person. Not my words, but God's.
This is really a condescending statement.  Who are you to say that other people want to believe?  Just because you want to believe, just because other people you personally know want to believe, and just because people you've heard of want to believe, does not mean everyone wants to believe.  To say so proves only that you are fundamentally misunderstanding your audience.  You should take the time to understand what the people here are actually saying, rather than assuming that you know what they're saying without really listening to it.
 1. They may not have tolerated the worship of other gods, but they never tried to claim that theirs was the only true god

Offline b2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Darwins +0/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #42 on: October 14, 2011, 11:48:45 AM »
Piano Dwarf,

Yes, i could choose to believe you, but i would prefer evidence, as would most people in that instance.

Truthseeker, the difference between us is which evidence we want/choose to believe, There are many scholars in both camps, so I am curious why you value your sources more than the Christian scholars? There must be something that swayed your view? Not quite sure how you assess the created being, given all our limitations, could be smarter than or superior to the creator? I am curious, if you don't mind me asking, what event in your life was the straw that broke the camels back for you. if there is another thread, please point me there....You don't owe me any explanations, just curious...and there is an up side to child like faith, and that was what I believe Jesus was referring to.

Velkyn, It is not my view that matters. It is God's that counts. There are criteria that historians use to determine if documents are credible. And I admit, I am not able to comment just yet, but I will when I am back home. Posting at work....not a good thing....

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4353
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2011, 12:08:51 PM »
Yes, i could choose to believe you, but i would prefer evidence, as would most people in that instance.

I think you're kidding yourself.  Here's a better one: can you choose to believe that the President of the United States is a jellyfish?  Even though there's overwhelming evidence that he's actually a human being?
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline b2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Darwins +0/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #44 on: October 14, 2011, 12:18:33 PM »
I can choose to believe anything I want. we all can for that matter. However, to be fair to where I think you're going with this, I would find it very difficult to believe he was a jelly fish given overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #45 on: October 14, 2011, 12:23:34 PM »
Velkyn, It is not my view that matters. It is God's that counts. There are criteria that historians use to determine if documents are credible. And I admit, I am not able to comment just yet, but I will when I am back home. Posting at work....not a good thing....

yes, they certainly do have criteria.  And the bible fails at those criteria.  I wonder if you even know what those criteria are.  In fact, I’ll ask you to tell me what they are, if you think you know.

As for your god’s views, you can’t even show that it exists much less has views.  What you want to call its views are simply yours, as all theists create their own god and religion based on what they personally like or hate.  Each Christian claims that what ever they claim is what their god “really” meant.  And none of you can show that to be true.

What you claim as “Chrsitain scholars” are those people who already have a reason to try to support their presuppositions.  I for instance would never believe a Christian scholar who claimed that the world was 4000 years old or that the Noah flood occurred since there is plenty of evidence that shows that this is utterly wrong. I also wouldn’t accept their claims since I can point out where they intentionally lie, use superseded information and misquote real scholars. 

Now, if you say that you accept things that have overwhelming evidence, and would find it very difficult to believe that which doesn't have overwhelming evidence, you have shown that you either don't beleive in your bible, or you do believe things with little to no evidence to support them.  Which is it?  You can't have it both ways.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10784
  • Darwins +275/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #46 on: October 14, 2011, 12:27:09 PM »
I can choose to believe anything I want. we all can for that matter.

This is quite an unsupported assertion. Very well then, I dare you to choose to believe that you haven't provided a single piece of evidence. Then I dare you to believe that our standards of evidence are better than yours. Then I dare you to provide evidence that meets our standards
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 12:29:48 PM by Blaziken_rjcf »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4353
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #47 on: October 14, 2011, 12:40:30 PM »
I can choose to believe anything I want. we all can for that matter.

With all due respect, please speak for yourself.  I, for one, am not capable of choosing what to believe, and I doubt that I'm alone on this one.

Quote
However, to be fair to where I think you're going with this, I would find it very difficult to believe he was a jelly fish given overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Yes, I think you do see where I'm headed.  There are many reasons that I do not accept Christian doctrine.  One of the less controversial ones is the idea that "Jesus died for my sins".  Apart from the fact that I think this is unjust and would never allow anyone else to be penalized for my actions, the concept simply doesn't make sense to me.  How does his death grant me the possibility of everlasting life in heaven?  I just can't understand it.  And why was the death necessary at all in any event?  If Yahweh is omnipotent, he should have just been able to flick a finger and accomplish the same goal, or any other goal, for that matter.

There are quite a few other things as well... the Bible relates a number of things that we know are historically inaccurate, such as the global Flood and the Exodus, and this casts doubt on the accuracy of the rest of the book.  Further, Christ explicitly says that anyone who believes in him will have powers even greater than his own, and it is painfully obvious that this is not the case (I haven't seen anyone cause a mountain to throw itself into the ocean with the power of prayer).  I could go on and on and on.

So yes, for more reasons than I can shake the proverbial stick at, I simply cannot accept that Christianity is true.  You'd probably have an easier time convincing me that Barack Obama is a jellyfish.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Darwins +13/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #48 on: October 14, 2011, 02:12:37 PM »
The one and only true God of course. Is there another?
What a great, non-answer! This tells me nothing.
I believe in Crimkutbarglebutt. He is the one and only true God of course. Is there another?

Quote
I believe it is freedom of choice regardless of the consequences. I think you're saying if there is a negative consequence, an individual would be more likely to not choose the thing with the negative consequence. But that didn't stop you from choosing to not believe in God did it?

Of course you believe that it is freedom of choice - in your mind you have made the right "choice".  I suppose that technically it is a choice but it paints the arbiter as a supreme asshole.

Why does there need to be a negative consequence? Why does this god need or want humans to believe much less worship it? Is the god needy or egotistical? I wouldn't want to worship any creature or being that threatened me.

I didn't choose to not believe in gods? I have never seen, heard, etc. any evidence for any gods so I am left with no choice but to not believe in any gods. Do you "choose" to not believe in Odin or Zeus? If you didn't "choose" to then why do you not believe in them (assuming that you do not)?

We are talking about the god of the bible, right? You believe that this god created the universe and everything in it? You believe that this god created and loves humans and wants them to join him in heaven? If he created the universe, then it created evil or things that he considers to be "sins" and allows them to exist . Why would an all-powerful being do that (if the being finds them detestable)? That seems incredibly stupid.

Quote
I believe you meant to say, God has not interacted in a way that is satisfactory to "me". Because he clearly intervened by sending Christ into the world. But you have exercised your freedom to not believe it.
You believe wrong. I meant exactly what I said. No god has ever interacted in a way that is demonstrable and could not be confused with a natural occurrence. What you arbitrarily decide to attribute to you god is of no consequence to me. If this god is all-powerful, anytime it interacts with the universe, earth or me (even if I were to possess no knowledge of the god any ancient writings associated with it), it would be blatantly obvious and it would be blatantly obvious which god interacted/intervened otherwise it is an exercise in futility on the part of the god.  How would I know what to attribute to the god that I believe in and why?

Offline jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Darwins +13/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #49 on: October 14, 2011, 02:45:13 PM »
Not quite sure how you assess the created being, given all our limitations, could be smarter than or superior to the creator?

Really? You have that small of an imagination?
I am an all powerful, magic sky wizard. I can create a universe billions of light years across filled with stars, planets, black holes just by a mere thought.
I am lonely(?) as all powerful, magic sky wizards tend to be, so I create a living being on one of those planets. Again, with a mere thought.
I love this being very much and want to frolic with it in the meadow every day for eternity. There are some things that I absolutely despise like those oversized, costume sunglasses (haven't been invented yet and if I'm not omniscient I don't know if they will be in the future) but I find them wretched. Maybe there are a few other things that I hate as well physical objects or even behaviors that my created being is capable of.
Guess what? I am all powerful. I can wipe any and all of those items/behaviors from existence for eternity. If my created being goes forth and procreates and develops a civilization which advances and advances, not one individual will ever conceive of oversized, costume sunglasses because I prevented it. I will never ever have to threaten the beings I created because anything that I don't want to be part of their world will never exist or be conceived of AND YET they still have free will. They can conceive, design and manufacture all of the oversized clown shoes that they want because I don't have a problem with those. We all live happily ever after.
BAM!! I'm smarter than yahweh.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1992
  • Darwins +194/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #50 on: October 14, 2011, 03:29:14 PM »
So let me start here. basically, no one in any of your comments, has given me one shred of evidence against God.

I'll bite. 

1.  You can't see, hear, taste, smell or touch God in any way.
2.  There are no tests or measurements you can take to determine if the claims about God are real.
3.  Prayer to God is equally as effective as a prayer to a rock.
4.  There are thousands of proposed gods that the world has been exposed to and all of them suffer from the same lack of verifiable evidence.
5.  Believers of other religions are equally fervent about their beliefs, even to the point of dying for them.
6.  The bible is written by fallible men.
7.  We do not know who wrote the gospels.  They were later attributed to certain apostolic characters in order to provide authority to the stories. 
8.  We have no original copies of any of the bible stories. 
9.  There are thousands of biblical manuscripts in multiple languages and when you compare and contrast them, there are hundreds of thousands of discrepancies. 
10.   The gospel accounts are different accounts of supposedly the same person.
11.  There is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus outside of the biblical story.
12.  We have millions of natural explanations for the phenomena we encounter in our every day lives (wind, sun, rain, plants, animals, etc, etc) thus making the God theory of explanation completely obsolete.  The phenomena we have yet to understand are not automatically classified under 'supernatural' via the Christian God. 
13.  Evolution is a fact. 
14.  There is no evidence that a human being has ever died for more than a few days and come back, despite what your special book says.  Therefore there is no evidence of heaven or hell.
15.  Omnipotence and omniscience in the same being is logically impossible. 
16.  The notion that God loves all people is not in evidence.  Humans endure suffering on unimaginable scales regardless of their religious affiliation. 

That's a start.  Now, what you will likely do is come up with a wide variety of theological beliefs which explain away such things as these, but you will provide no evidence to back up your claims.  You'll just state them and probably quote your special book, which btw, most of us have read.  But you must understand, quoting a book does you no good.  The bible is a work of fiction.  In order to prove that it is not a work of fiction, you must provide evidence that any of it is true. 

b2, you have come to this website strong in your beliefs.  It is entirely likely that you've been fed this information about God and the bible for quite some time by people you trusted and looked up to.  What you have to understand is that we are equally fervent in thinking you are completely wrong.  And we have really, really good reasons for thinking that.  While you may think we are only angry at God, this is not the case.  I have no more anger toward God than I do toward Darth Vader.  They are fictional characters.  Given what you have said thus far, it is also very likely that you have never looked carefully at what the people on the other side of the argument are saying. 

When there are 2 opposing sides of an argument, the only way to determine what is true versus what is false is to look at the evidence.  The bible is just a book with claims in it.  So is the Koran.  So is the Torah.  None of them are evidence in an of themselves.  That Jesus rose from the dead is no more truthful a claim than Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. 

You believe one side of a VERY 2 sided argument b2.  Unfortunately, you are on the wrong side.  There is no such thing as the Christian God.  I don't say that in anger.  I say it in the same way I say 2 + 2 = 4.  It's just a fact. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Petey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 882
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #51 on: October 14, 2011, 03:32:12 PM »
Petey, I am honored that you have seen me as child like.

Then he said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.

There's something about "childlike faith," you see, children belive in imaginary stuff like Santa, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Ghosts, Monster under the Bed, Monster in the Closet, etc. Why? A) They're told to, so they believe whatever crap they're told. B) They make shit up on thier own because they don't understand the difference between reality and imagination.

Edit: You don't still believe in Santa do you? If not, why? The evidence is all around you he's real, especially during Christmas. Could you just imagine a 5 year old, after sitting on Santa's lap, telling him what they wanted to get for Christmas, getting thier picture taken with Santa, then bounding with joy going back to thier Mom and/or Dad, and then you telling that child that there's no Santa? Seriously! It's so frikking obvious there IS a Santa! They even track him on RADAR! Sheesh. Not believing in Santa is a Belief after all.

Thanks, TS.  I was going to write something similar, but got distracted by that damned "work" thing.

I find it rather funny that grown people are convinced that thinking like a child is a good thing, just because it's written a book.  Adults have a tendency to be selfish, uncaring, and flat-out mean...but children are far worse in all of those things.  And of course, there's the problem of believing whatever they're told.
He never pays attention, he always knows the answer, and he can never tell you how he knows. We can't keep thrashing him. He is a bad example to the other pupils. There's no educating a smart boy.
-– Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

Offline b2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Darwins +0/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #52 on: October 14, 2011, 05:28:39 PM »
jeffPT, Thanks for the thoughtful response. I am not an orderly person, and to be honest, I can only tackle one issue at a time. So this will go slowly I'm sure.

3.  Prayer to God is equally effective as prayer to a rock. For the unbeliever, absolutely correct!! Why would you assume as a non believer that you would have equal footing with a believer. Why would God answer the prayer of a non-believer? In fact, God looks at a mans heart and determines his motives, and your motive is to "test" him. Given your indifference, or status of being against HIM, your statement makes complete sense. So what do we gain from this comment/evidence?

a.  You don't believe in God. Check
b.  HE seemingly, doesn't answer your prayers (or respond to your test). Not surprising. I have never seen a case in the bible where GOD answered the prayer of a non-believer. And GOD never indicated that he would.
c.  Conclusion is, no GOD. check

Don't see how this is evidence that GOD doesn't exist. HE is responding like HE said he would.

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #53 on: October 14, 2011, 05:33:10 PM »
Aaron 123....I must admit, I admire your approach and demeanor. Nice meeting you here.

Pleasure.  I'm trying to be a little less confrontational now, at least with those saying they're willing to stick around and learn and few things. 

Just remember a few things:

1) Many of your arguments, we have heard before.  So if you feel that some people are testy, this is why.  It can be fustrating to see the same argument being made over and over.  Because of this, it can be hard to be cool towards a new person unaware that they're making the same points.

2) I've said this before, but I'll say it again; if you're feeling overwelmed with comments, then ask that everyone slow down and give you time to respond.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline b2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Darwins +0/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #54 on: October 14, 2011, 05:48:51 PM »
Aaron 123,

I understand your points. I also am aware that I am not as eloquent as I need to be in expressing my thoughts at times. So perhaps some comments seem sarcastic or as another gentlemen put it, I was being condescending. That is never my intent.  I would offer that you may never see anything new in defense of the Christian Faith come from me, as I also must admit, this forum offers no surprises in your arguments or observations.  But in the end, we will have to agree to disagree perhaps.  Never the less, I Do appreciate the manner in which you express your views and do appreciate your arguments.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1992
  • Darwins +194/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #55 on: October 14, 2011, 06:02:51 PM »
jeffPT, Thanks for the thoughtful response. I am not an orderly person, and to be honest, I can only tackle one issue at a time. So this will go slowly I'm sure.

Take your time.  I hope you learn something from it. While you accuse us of not having open minds, please understand that it is you who has closed yours to alternate possibilities.  As an agnostic atheist, my claim is that while I do not believe in any god or gods, I hold open the possibility of being proven wrong.  Your position offers no such leeway. 

Why would you assume as a non believer that you would have equal footing with a believer.

I wouldn't!  In fact, if God really existed, it would be silly to assume I should have equal favor in His eyes.  The ironic fact, however, is that this is exactly the case.  We are on equal footing.  There is no difference between the way God answers your prayers and mine.  Prayer answers seem to be completely dependent on the circumstances surrounding what is asked for.  What am I to conclude from this?  Well, one obvious conclusion is that God doesn't answer any prayers at all, and the way things turn out is exactly as they would have turned out if we never prayed at all.  Follow that a bit further, and despite what you say, this is a one of many good reasons to think God isn't real. 

Why would God answer the prayer of a non-believer?

I could get God to answer my prayers all the time if I wanted.  All I have to do is ask for something that is likely to happen anyway.  "God, please let me post this message before midnight".  Check.  "God, please allow my son go to bed without giving me any trouble." Check.  You can do the same thing.  Try it.  Then, try this prayer with me... "God, please in your ultimate greatness, end the scourge we know as cancer, now and forever."  Nothing, right?  I thought so. 

In fact, God looks at a mans heart and determines his motives, and your motive is to "test" him. Given your indifference, or status of being against HIM, your statement makes complete sense. So what do we gain from this comment/evidence?

a.  You don't believe in God. Check
b.  HE seemingly, doesn't answer your prayers (or respond to your test). Not surprising. I have never seen a case in the bible where GOD answered the prayer of a non-believer. And GOD never indicated that he would.
c.  Conclusion is, no GOD. check

Don't see how this is evidence that GOD doesn't exist. HE is responding like HE said he would.

Ah, the old "don't test God" line.  Classic.  Think about this b2.  If God were not real, could you test him?  What would happen if you did?  Would it be a similar experience to that of a God who did not want to be tested?  Yeah, I thought so.  The biblical authors put that in there because they knew that whenever you tested God to see if He was real, you got nothing.  This is simply the excuse they came up with. 

Did I not say this is exactly how you would respond?  This is your theological explanation as to why it appears that your God does not answer prayers.  You back it up with no actual evidence, just a theological explanation.  There are dozens of possible explanations as to why (if God existed) he doesn't answer prayers.  You could say he's just being a dick.  You could say he will only answer prayers for people who pray while standing on their heads. Or you could say that he doesn't answer the prayers of non-believers.   All of those are perfectly acceptable explanations that may or may not be true.  But all of them suffer  from exactly the same problem.  No supporting evidence. But there is one simple explanation that works better than all of them, and that is the notion that God isn't real.  The truth is that there is no objective, measurable difference between a God that chooses to answer prayers the way you say he does, and one that does not exist. 

Unless you can show some sort of verifiable proof that there is a difference between the way God answers a believers prayers over that of a non-believer, then you are completely sunk.  I am saying without question, the way prayer works for believers and unbelievers is exactly the same, and it is because there is no God, and prayer is completely useless. While you are likely sitting there shaking your head, firm in your faith, please know that it really is you who could be wrong.  It really is. 

Let me ask you this.... What is the objective, measurable difference between the way your God answers prayers, and the way a God that doesn't exist answers prayers?  And what is the objective, measurable difference between a God that doesn't want to be tested (so he purposefully fails all the tests), and a God that doesn't exist? 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4733
  • Darwins +537/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #56 on: October 14, 2011, 06:21:34 PM »
3.  Prayer to God is equally effective as prayer to a rock. For the unbeliever, absolutely correct!! Why would you assume as a non believer that you would have equal footing with a believer. Why would God answer the prayer of a non-believer? In fact, God looks at a mans heart and determines his motives, and your motive is to "test" him. Given your indifference, or status of being against HIM, your statement makes complete sense. So what do we gain from this comment/evidence?

a.  You don't believe in God. Check
b.  HE seemingly, doesn't answer your prayers (or respond to your test). Not surprising. I have never seen a case in the bible where GOD answered the prayer of a non-believer. And GOD never indicated that he would.
c.  Conclusion is, no GOD. check

Don't see how this is evidence that GOD doesn't exist. HE is responding like HE said he would.
That is an incorrect statement.  For it to be correct, God would have to have said that he would never respond to the prayer of a non-believer.  Your statement is that he never indicated that he would, but that is not the same as saying that he won't.[1]

Furthermore, who are you to say that God does not do things for unbelievers, assuming he does them for believers?  Someone's cancer goes into remission by itself, a person survives a horrible accident without injury, or some other miraculous event.  They happen to both believers and unbelievers, with or without prayer.  Furthermore, many prayers by devout and fervent Christians go unanswered.
 1. Which of course assumes that it is God saying those things, instead of believers saying them for God.

Offline b2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Darwins +0/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus' resurrection
« Reply #57 on: October 14, 2011, 06:27:45 PM »
first question, how do I paste a comment. Sorry man, Computer illiterate. it does make the discussions easier to follow for sure. I'll attempt it here, so if this is bogus looking, my bad. better yet, let me try this out first...disregard this post

Quote