Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Your explanation is as biased as those who believe it happened.
And Paul is referring to us, when we die. Not Jesus when he actually appeared in human form to all those people. You just can't accept it, and will cling to any scant possible explanation that suits your argument.

My grandmother died last weekend. My brother saw her rise from the dead. He even wrote it down, so that makes it watertight. Wanna see?

Do you accept this account?

You have no evidence to disprove it. So it must be true, right?

Should we accept this kind of evidence in a court?

Let us conclude then by agreeing with this?
There are perhaps 2 interpretations of Jesus ' resurrection.
1. A physical bodily resurrection and appearance to several followers
2. A spiritual, celestial resurrection, where followers believed He was there in spirit.
You support premise 2. Although that assumes you believe in Jesus.
I believe in 1.
Otherwise, why are you even debating this?
And I don't need to give you any evidence. You read the Bible. You have made your own conclusion based on...?

What about the talking snake? Do you believe that one also?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I saw the thread on here ask a communist and I thought as a Christian I would put up a similar thread to answer question as I consider myself a fairly middle of the road Christian.

Before I start answering questions I just wanted to state a few things.

This thread is NOT for a debate between Christian and atheists for that please use another thread
I am here to answer more general questions rather than get into deep theological discussions
I will aim to reply in a timely manner but I work full time and have other commitments so I apologise if I don't reply straight away.
I will be respectful and polite towards people no matter what their views and beliefs are so I would appreciate the same in return.
Please keep it to a maximum of 2 questions per post and wait for those to be responded to before posting more.

Feel free to fire away with any questions.

Why do you hold a belief for which there is no evidence?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Not sure where you're at tonight, spelling errors galore, and very fixated for an open minded non believer.
Jesus died, for our sins, and as was prophesied in many OT verses, rose from the dead, and appeared in bodily form to his apostles.
This is why we are Christians. This is what we call the Good News. You anti-theists say it can not happen, so therefore it did not happen. YOU WILL NEVER WIN THIS ARGUMENT against Christians who truly believe the Good News. It is what makes us tick as Christians.
According to Paul, in 1 Cor 15, when we die, it will be a spiritual resurrection. Time will tell.

Also, Fenris will one day break free of his chains and eat the Sun, ushering in the Age of Ragnarok. It's written down so it must be true.

What should we do to keep Fenris at bay? What is God's advice? You are a learned and true believer. Please tell us.

Do I need to sacrifice extra ravens before the next full moon?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Just produce one eyewitness account of the resurrection.....just one will do

 

[Saint]

The arguments about what the bible says and doesn't say about the death of a man hundreds of years before the book was written are a bit pointless aren't they?

It's a bit like using Harry Potter to historically analyse the Salem Witch Trials.

They're a bunch of stories which are contradictory "Eye for an eye" v "forgiveness", written by completely different people at completely different times in completely different languages cobbled together.

Watching people squabble over meaning is like watching hundreds of people with round pegs trying to put them in square holes. I don't think there's a crime or good deed in this world which can't find a welcoming passage in the bible. From Genocide to patricide, fratricide and incest. Love they neighbour, forgive every sin, destroy whole cities, Trump's a saviour. Being Rich is God's reward, or you should give all your money away or try to squeeze a camel through the eye of a needle.

You want a religious justification? This book has got it for everyone. Perhaps it's why it was so popular. PLus the religious orders ruled empires and killed anyone who didn't believe. If the police were out killing all atheists, I'd have pictures of Jesus up all over the place!

 

[Roylion]

The arguments about what the bible says and doesn't say about the death of a man hundreds of years before the book was written are a bit pointless aren't they?

That's the discussion. How trustworthy/reliable is the Bible as virtually the only source of evidence to support claims that an extraordinary/miraculous event such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus actually took place? Given that religious believers are still using that source as a primary means to proselytize their beliefs.

 

[Saint]

That's the discussion. How trustworthy/reliable is the Bible as virtually the only source of evidence to support claims that an extraordinary/miraculous event such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus actually took place? Given that religious believers are still using that source as a primary means to proselytize their beliefs.

I think it's the same trap as trying to disprove Trump's many lies. If you allow Trump to set the tone of the argument "There was fraud, prove me wrong" then you're arguing on his territory.

The argument should not be framed around the content of the bible "There was a resurrection outlined in the bible, prove me wrong". The answer should be "that's impossible" then there's no more discussion. It's simply scientifically impossible.

Once you wade into biblical interpretations (which appear to be infinite) then it becomes pointless.

The argument is not about the bible v history. It's science v superstition and should always be framed as such. You notice how the religious never let the discussion become scientific?

 

[Roylion]

I think it's the same trap as trying to disprove Trump's many lies. If you allow Trump to set the tone of the argument "There was fraud, prove me wrong" then you're arguing on his territory.

The only way to refute Trump effectively is to present overwhelming evidence that he is incorrect.

So I'm happy on to argue on their "territory". Otherwise there is an unchallenged refuge based on a subjective interpretation of ancient writings

The argument should not be framed around the content of the bible.

Of course it should. That is their source material. In my view the source material is neither historically accurate or interpreted correctly by many Christians. Demonstrating both will likely not change their minds as they are set in stone. However it may encourage those on the "fence" to examine the sources fo their claims far more critically than they otherwise would.

The answer should be "that's impossible" then there's no more discussion. It's simply scientifically impossible.

Of course it is. That has been pointed out many times.

Their claim that it is indeed possible is based on an erroneous interpretation of the Bible, such as the sayings of Paul. Paul himslf said no such thing about the resurrection.

The argument is not about the bible v history. It's science v superstition and should always be framed as such.

Christians obviously don't regard it as supersitition. I personally find their claims to be unconvincing and unsupported, but many don't. The flaws in the evidence should be pointed out.

You notice how the religious never let the discussion become scientific?

I do. When the scientific evidence that contradicts their claims becomes overwhelming, the aim is then to spin that evidence in another more favourable direction. Evolution is a very good example. The angle now is that microevolution exists but not macroevolution. Intelligent design advocates claim that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

 

[M Malice]

 

[Gethelred]

God is a him? interesting lol why can't god have big ****?

Nothing left in the coffers to pay for the implants.

 

[Gethelred]

Paul does not reject the resurrection of the flesh. At times, "flesh" is used by Paul negatively (e.g., Galatians 5:24ff) but that is in reference to our sinful nature, our fleshly desires, not in reference to actual physical substance. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul uses, in the Greek, the word for a literal, physical body. Yes, it will be a spiritual body - but it is a body nonetheless - a real, physical body.

Our bodies, as they are now, are not fit for Heaven. Why? They are riddled with original sin, and subject to death, decay and sadness of the body. In Heaven, in the New Earth, they will he glorified. Our bodies now are physical and spiritual. They will be in Heaven, too. They will be glorified. Paul absolutely believes in a physical resurrection - not to mention Thomas in John 20.

In Matthew 26, Jesus descends into Hell and raises thee dead to life - they are seen, physically, walking around Jerusalem.

Praise God for the hope of the resurrection, which is our justification and our life eternal!

I have a question. Where in the body does the Original Sin reside? Can it be removed without killing that person?

 

[Gethelred]

No brother, I read the Bible. That is plenty. That is God's word to us. The best book ever written.

... until you want to ignore some of it. Then, it's only divinely inspired, and you can pick and choose which parts God wants you to follow.

 

[Saint]

The only way to refute Trump effectively is to present overwhelming evidence that he is incorrect.

So I'm happy on to argue on their "territory". Otherwise there is an unchallenged refuge based on a subjective interpretation of ancient writings

This would all be true if you were discussing in good faith using the same foundational knowledge. But we're not. Trump (and his supporters) will continue to make up lies, examples of fraud and so-called evidence. You'd be mad to spend as much or all of your time presenting overwhelming evidence to made-up stories with no factual basis. They spend 10 hours making up 10 different fraud stories, you spend 10 hours disproving each story (100 hours total) through research and interviews and who wins?

It's the same with the gospels. It's no good providing overwhelming evidence if the whole premise of the story is that it's a "Miracle" and therefore can't be explained anyway.

By arguing over what's in the bible, it's like you're accepting "miracles" can happen and "God" might exist, but arguing only over the evidence of it. When in reality the onus should be on them to prove this stuff exists, not on sane people to prove it doesn't.

 

[Saint]

No brother, I read the Bible. That is plenty. That is God's word to us. The best book ever written.

The Quran has pretty much the same message but is a lot easier to read. It's a better book IMO. Biblical stories and arrangement is all over the shop.

 

[Roylion]

By arguing over what's in the bible, it's like you're accepting "miracles" can happen and "God" might exist, but arguing only over the evidence of it. When in reality the onus should be on them to prove this stuff exists, not on sane people to prove it doesn't.

The point I have been making consistently is that these writings are man-inspired only and that any notion of a 'miracle' (such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus) comes either from a misreading / misinterpretation of Paul or is simply propaganda in order to attract converts. I disagree that any counter argument to religious claims made on here is "accepting 'miracles' happen. That's been the point. They don't. Pointing out significant flaws in their supporting evidence weakens any argument for historical veracity. It's not about proving that it didn't happen, it's asking them to present robust evidence to support their extraordinary claims that it did.

 

[Saint]

I think the bible is pretty clear it's saying God helps miracles happen all the time. Directly. There's nothing to be misinterpreted. Therefore if you believe it, you never really have to have proof, the whole point is that it defies explanation.

I think claiming "misinterpretation" still upholds the value of the book as any form of knowledge at all, which I think is dangerous since there are so many poor ideas in there, particularly the old testament and believing a book as a moral basis at all is detrimental to critical thinking, especially in children.

 

[Vdubs]

Just produce one eyewitness account of the resurrection.....just one will do

You produce one eyewitness account that your grandfather was born. Just one.

 

[Evolved1]

I think the bible is pretty clear it's saying God helps miracles happen all the time. Directly. There's nothing to be misinterpreted. Therefore if you believe it, you never really have to have proof, the whole point is that it defies explanation.

I think claiming "misinterpretation" still upholds the value of the book as any form of knowledge at all, which I think is dangerous since there are so many poor ideas in there, particularly the old testament and believing a book as a moral basis at all is detrimental to critical thinking, especially in children.

Pulling apart the bible through arguing about mistranslations, logical fallacies, immoral lessons, scientific errors, historical evidence, and contradictions has plenty of value.

There's no common ground to debate from if you aren't willing to concede anything along the way.

I'm happy to concede ground on the basis of technicalities such as not being able to disprove god or the veracity of some bible claims. Life is about playing the odds, and the odds show that adherents of the Christian faith are gambling their life on an outcome with a low probability of success.

 

[Total Power]

You produce one eyewitness account that your grandfather was born. Just one.

My grandfather was born of a virgin and he walked on water, so he said.

 

[Gethelred]

You produce one eyewitness account that your grandfather was born. Just one.

When you're ready, I have my grandfather's birth certificate available.

 

[Evolved1]

When you're ready, I have my grandfather's birth certificate available.

If a white couple have a black baby, does that mean goddidit? He gets around, ole god.

 

[Gethelred]

If a white couple have a black baby, does that mean goddidit? He gets around, ole god.

It wouldn't be the first time. I mean, there's this lady in an old book who manages to sell the idea to her fiance that she certainly didn't do the intercourse with a local roman soldier, no sir. That one was from on high.

 

[Evolved1]

It wouldn't be the first time. I mean, there's this lady in an old book who manages to sell the idea to her fiance that she certainly didn't do the intercourse with a local roman soldier, no sir. That one was from on high.

I wonder how often women used that excuse back in the day. Nah I wasn't playing around on you...goddidit. That usage of the god of the gaps fallacy spawned a new religion. Impressive.

 

[Total Power]

How come all the gods end up being white men? it's really insulting!

 

[Roylion]

It wouldn't be the first time. I mean, there's this lady in an old book who manages to sell the idea to her fiance that she certainly didn't do the intercourse with a local roman soldier, no sir. That one was from on high.

Nortius Maximus his name was. Hmm. Promised me the known world he did. I was to be taken to Rome. House by the Forum. Slaves. Asses' milk. As much gold as I could eat. Then, he, having his way with me had... voom! Like a rat out of an aqueduct.