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

 

[Rosscoe]

You are being fast and loose with the meaning of very important words.

If your definition of “dead” is functionally useless, as you’ve demonstrated here, what word do you suggest we use instead?

Or, alternatively, you have to agree that if Jesus “rose from the dead”, he can’t have been dead.

You can’t have it both ways.

I said resurrection though.

 

[Evolved1]

Christians in this thread are entitled to a starting presumption. They have 2000 odd years on their side. So get to work and rebut, SBD; gather your evidence and present it to them

That's a terrible argument.

Does Judaism have a starting presumption over Christianity since it has a longer history? If so, the argument is settled that Jesus isn't the messiah and therefore Christianity is false until proven otherwise.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I said resurrection though.

Same end result. You're saying "dead" means "dead", then by using "resurrection", completely trashing that meaning.

So Jesus wasn't dead. It's the only possible conclusion, if words are to have any meaning.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

That's a terrible argument.

Does Judaism have a starting presumption over Christianity since it has a longer history? If so, the argument is settled that Jesus isn't the messiah and therefore Christianity is false until proven otherwise.

And Hinduism trumps the lot. Always a problem for Christians when they set off down the "we're the best because we were first" route.

 

[Opine]

That's a terrible argument.

Does Judaism have a starting presumption over Christianity since it has a longer history? If so, the argument is settled that Jesus isn't the messiah and therefore Christianity is false until proven otherwise.

No I don’t believe so. Despite its lengthy history, Judaism in its own right hasn’t been as predominant as Christianity. The main Western democracies and their institutions have been predominately influenced by Christian doctrine; specifically AU, USA, UK for purposes of this discussion.

 

[Opine]

And Hinduism trumps the lot. Always a problem for Christians when they set off down the "we're the best because we were first" route.

Is not a question of who’s better. Even your own country’s Westminster legal system is predominately influenced by Christian doctrine.

 

[Evolved1]

No I don’t believe so. Despite its lengthy history, Judaism in its own right hasn’t been as predominant as Christianity. The main Western democracies and their institutions have been predominately influenced by Christian doctrine; specifically AU, USA, UK for purposes of this discussion.

How does the influence of Christian doctrine on Western democracies act as evidence for the validity of Christianity? You haven't explained your rationale for that point.

If your argument is that the level of influence by a religion on society is directly proportional to its validity, surely you'd have to agree that Islam is superior to Christianity. Several Arab nations are built around Islam not just as a religion but as a culture. It's estimated that over 95% of Pakistani's are Muslim while only 65% of Americans are Christian.

Next you'd have to look at the validity of atheism which you believe to be a religion. Atheism, through methodological naturalism, has brought us technological advancement and modern medicine. Stack that up against the biblical supernatural methodology of healing, and there's no contest. The proof is really in the pudding when you compare the effectiveness of each approach in respect to medicine.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

No I don’t believe so. Despite its lengthy history, Judaism in its own right hasn’t been as predominant as Christianity. The main Western democracies and their institutions have been predominately influenced by Christian doctrine; specifically AU, USA, UK for purposes of this discussion.

The whole idea of democracy was developed by the Greeks... by your logic, doesn't that place the burden of proof on Christians to disprove the existence of Zeus?

 

[Opine]

How does the influence of Christian doctrine on Western democracies act as evidence for the validity of Christianity? You haven't explained your rationale for that point.

If your argument is that the level of influence by a religion on society is directly proportional to its validity, surely you'd have to agree that Islam is superior to Christianity. Several Arab nations are built around Islam not just as a religion but as a culture. It's estimated that over 95% of Pakistani's are Muslim while only 65% of Americans are Christian.

Next you'd have to look at the validity of atheism which you believe to be a religion. Atheism, through methodological naturalism, has brought us technological advancement and modern medicine. Stack that up against the biblical supernatural methodology of healing, and there's no contest. The proof is really in the pudding when you compare the effectiveness of each approach in respect to medicine.

It’s totally reasonable to infer prolonged adoption and development of Christian derived norms and customs as acceptance and validation of the same. Thats proof in the pudding.

 

[Rosscoe]

Same end result. You're saying "dead" means "dead", then by using "resurrection", completely trashing that meaning.

So Jesus wasn't dead. It's the only possible conclusion, if words are to have any meaning.

Well what would you call someone that has been dead for three days. Tri can mean three and dead together can make the new word Tridead (meaning dead for three days).

He was Tridead and then he resurrected.

 

[Opine]

The whole idea of democracy was developed by the Greeks... by your logic, doesn't that place the burden of proof on Christians to disprove the existence of Zeus?

Perhaps, if they were trying to establish their doctrine and institutions, but that ark’s already sailed (pardon the pun)
You can see this in their early architecture; churches cathedrals were initially designed to impress and attract a following, today new church related structures presuppose existing acceptance and design turns to less elaborate form.

 

[Evolved1]

It’s totally reasonable to infer prolonged adoption and development of Christian derived norms and customs as acceptance and validation of the same. Thats proof in the pudding.

Acceptance of Christian customs = magic man rose from the dead.

Sincerely, it's one of the worst arguments proposed on this thread. You don't seem to be affording other religions the same leeway, which points to a cultural bias on your part.

 

[Opine]

Acceptance of Christian customs = magic man rose from the dead.

…You don't seem to be affording other religions the same leeway, which points to a cultural bias on your part.

I agree; rise from dead is highly unlikely, and cultural bias entrenched.

 

[Opine]

Acceptance of Christian customs = magic man rose from the dead.

Sincerely, it's one of the worst arguments proposed on this thread. You don't seem to be affording other religions the same leeway, which points to a cultural bias on your part.

Much of the equitable standards of conduct which have since been entrenched in the way we operate derived from substantive and procedural Christian influence. That’s not to say that it couldn’t or wouldn’t have developed otherwise. But the fact is it did.

 

[Roylion]

It’s totally reasonable to infer prolonged adoption and development of Christian derived norms and customs as acceptance and validation of the same.

So "prolonged adoption and development of Christian derived norms and customs" in western society confirms the truth of the supernatural events outlined in the Gospels, as well as the existence of Yahweh.

Thats proof in the pudding.

In what way?

 

[Evolved1]

I agree; rise from dead is highly unlikely, and cultural bias entrenched.

Given the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian theology, the entire religion falls apart if Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

Every non-believer here will agree that parts of the bible are based on factual events and real people, and that Western society has been influenced by Christian customs. Most of us celebrate Christmas as a cultural event without involving the religious connotations.

There's no point of contention in any of that. How you derive your argument that Christianity must automatically be assumed true while a burden of proof lies with the opposition is another argument altogether, and one you'll be hard pressed to find accepted arguments for. While you aren't required to explain yourself, few here are likely to accept claims for which you refuse to provide adequate justification.

My position is that extraordinary claims should be assumed false unless sufficient evidence is provided. If Christians want others to accept their claims of supernaturalism, the burden of proof rests with them to show evidence for those claims.

How else would an unbiased observer differentiate between true and false gods, along with claims of miracles from adherents?

 

[Opine]

…



In what way?

Amongst other things: go and research Westminster system, look up it’s history, research equitable courts and doctrine and role of catholic bishops in those courts, then look up equity v common law and see which prevails even today. Then have a peak at the Australian Consumer Law and notice those principles have been codified, so next time you unconscionably get taken advantage of you can thank those blokes in robes all those years ago for the remedies you have today. Get to it.

 

[Roylion]

Amongst other things: go and research Westminster system, look up it’s history, research equitable courts and doctrine and role of catholic bishops in those courts, then look up equity v law and see which prevails even today. Then have a peak and the Australian Consumer Law and notice those principles have been codified so next time you unconscionably get taken advantage of, you can thank those blokes in robes all those years ago. Get to it.

How does any of this confirm the truth of the supernatural events outlined in the Gospels, as well as the existence of Yahweh?

 

[Opine]

How does any of this confirm the truth of the supernatural events outlined in the Gospels, as well as the existence of Yahweh?

The burdens on you. Even the preamble to your nations birth notes it’s creation was in part the result of their god’s guidance. Present your case; you’re owed shit.

 

[Roylion]

The burdens on you.

No its not. I'm not making a claim to truth. I'm asking how those who are making a claim to truth can claim it as truth.

Even the preamble to your nations birth notes it creation was in part the result of their god’s guidance.

That means absolutely nothing. It's absolutely and totally irrelevant in confirming the truth of supernatural events outlined in the Gospels, as well as the existence of Yahweh.

 

[Pessimistic]

Judaism isn’t expansionist

 

[Evolved1]

The fundies used to bring up better arguments. Opine is a woeful.

 

[Opine]

No its not. I'm not making a claim to truth. I'm asking how those who are making a claim to truth can claim it as truth.



That means absolutely nothing. It's absolutely and totally irrelevant in confirming the truth of supernatural events outlined in the Gospels, as well as the existence of Yahweh.

The burden is on you.

 

[Evolved1]

The burden is on you.

Blah blah blah.

Am I doing it right?

 

[Roylion]

The burden is on you.

No it is not.

I'm not the one making a claim to truth. I'm asking how those who are making a claim to truth (for example the historicity of the resurrection) can claim it as truth.