Why God??!!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Black Knight84
1. Scientifically it is impossible for a man to walk on the water. Fortunately Jesus wasn't merely a man (Peter was, but Jesus was helping him in that part of walking on water). As much as I would love to test this, by having humans as my test subjects I would be testing the wrong kind of people and unfortunately there are no more 'sons of God' hanging around waiting to be tested.

Scientifically, it's impossible for ANYTHING to "walk on water", unless it happens to be less dense than water. According to your doctrine, Jesus had human form. Humans generally aren't less dense than water, unless they're really, really fat.

2. And you think that, that is a minor issue? Jesus was killed for claiming to be the Son of God and his followers persecuted for it. Many other religions believe in an omnipotent creator as well. So you don't believe it would be a major life change for a Muslim to convert to Christianity?

Not as much as from an atheist to a christian.

3. Did their Gods do what Jesus did? It's all very nice to say that Romans prayed to their Gods, those claims are unverifiable however the claims of what Jesus did and who he was, as I've shown you are a little bit more than the claims about the Roman God's.

No, they aren't. There is no more evidence for it than those other claims.

4 + 5. Well if converting to Christianity is not that much of a deal then why didn't all the Jews convert that easily? Perhaps it has something to do with their culture and their traditions. Look how Jesus was painted in the Talmud? With a very negative brush, oh but hang on, they already believe in an omnipotent creator so it's all good!

It is a big deal, but less so than from atheism to Christianity.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Black Knight84
Would you care to elaborate on this point? Who do you think moved him? His followers? They were too scared to go anywhere near the tomb and if they did the Roman guards that were posted there would have arrested them. So could it be the Pharisees? Ha Ha! Lol NO, they wouldn't have anything to gain and everything to lose if they did that! Perhaps it was the Romans Soldiers

The Pharisees in Matthew 28:11-15 came up with this argument:

"While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep'. If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been circulated among the Jews to this very day".

Well as we can see the Roman soldiers had nothing to gain by stealing the dead body. They were so scared of being punished they went to the Jewish leaders and followed the alibi.
So did Jesus' followers come during the night?
Well there are few main issues if that is true:
1. The guard on watch at the tomb happened to miss a few characters rolling away an extremely heavy seal that would take several men to move, it would also be pretty noisy in the movement process.
2. There was no watch yet somehow the movement of this heavy stone didn't wake up the guards
3. The disciples died for a lie they had created?

**Oh and concerning the disciples, I was a little mistaken, some of them still doubted even after Jesus was physcially resurrected:

Matthew 28:16-20

"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the end of the age".

So it is logically impossible that the disciples themselves came and took the body, it is also impossible that the Jews or Roman soldiers did either? Can you think of a more logical explanation other than the one the Gospels claim?

To summarize: because you can find no rational motive for removing his body, you instead accept the existance of a supernatural being?

[Whaleboy]

Buddhism No god required (per se at least).

The Judeo-semitic idea of God is stupid.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Your book, Lincoln? Is this it? Did you write a review for your own book and give yourself 5 stars?

Yes. I was going to rate it with 6 stars but the options only went up to 5.

Anyway, why don't you read it. You may learn something, and think of the poor starving author you would be helping.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Black Knight84
Would you care to elaborate on this point? Who do you think moved him?

As Boris said, probably grave robbers, or perhaps even the followers (I'll respond to your objections to that as I get to them). Maybe also Jews who were political enemies of Jesus, messing with his tomb for some sort of final revenge (or just as a sign of disrespect).

His followers? They were too scared to go anywhere near the tomb and if they did the Roman guards that were posted there would have arrested them.

How do we know of the guards? The accounts. I can see the guards being added in as an explanation of why it wasn't grave robbers, for instance. They could have thought, it can't have been grave robbers (or someone else trying to desecrate his tomb), because he said he'd be ressurected (or simply because God would not let anything happen to the body), so how were the potential vandals kept away? There must have been guards.

So could it be the Pharisees? Ha Ha! Lol NO, they wouldn't have anything to gain and everything to lose if they did that!

Why?

Perhaps it was the Romans Soldiers

I wouldn't put it past them.

The Pharisees in Matthew 28:11-15 came up with this argument:

"While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep'. If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been circulated among the Jews to this very day".

Ah! Did you miss that that can easily be construed as implicating the Pharisees in the disappearence of the body? They could be trying to discredit the disciples.

Well as we can see the Roman soldiers had nothing to gain by stealing the dead body. They were so scared of being punished they went to the Jewish leaders and followed the alibi.

Or they could have fallen asleep on the job, and been afraid of being punished for that. Or they could have had a deal with the Pharisees in the first place.

So did Jesus' followers come during the night?
Well there are few main issues if that is true:
1. The guard on watch at the tomb happened to miss a few characters rolling away an extremely heavy seal that would take several men to move, it would also be pretty noisy in the movement process.
2. There was no watch yet somehow the movement of this heavy stone didn't wake up the guards
3. The disciples died for a lie they had created?

As I remarked before, I don't see incontrovertible evidence of the guards, and wrt the "dieing for a lie they had created", the human mind has powerful means of deceiving itself. They could have convinced themselves that Jesus had ordered them to do it, and his spirit had been ressurected.

[Kirnwaffen]

And yes I step back from my previous statement about there being 1 billlion christians in the world. After thinking about it, there are probably alot less

Best estimate available is 2 billion.

Now, I'd like to take a step back. I'm not going to argue the existence of Jesus. Most people won't. What I will argue is that, even though you may corroborate the historical accuracy of certain aspects the Gospels, you still can't corroborate their claims of the miracles Jesus performed, nor can you corroborate his resurection. In fact, barring any major new archaeological finds that contain further references to details, you can't even confirm minor details, such as the guard at Jesus' tomb.

What you can't confirm, you take purely on faith. I'm not knockin' that. There is, however, little use in trying to use the Gospels as reliable evidence of Jesus' divinity.

[Dr Strangelove]

Well, it's like Thomas said: "Happy are those who have not seen or touched me and yet believe."

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Black Knight84


Man that sux. I feel for you man.

Well, that's not necessary. It would be more appropriate to feel for them.

The Bible whilst is crystal clear that we are only saved by God's sacrifice for us on the cross. That is what saves us.

I don't think it's that simple. For many this belief becomes an excuse for passivity and self-indulgence. I think it's utterly sincere to go around thinking: "Christ died for me, I believe it. Oh yeah I'm ready for rapture. I'm going to heaven and you're not Boo Yah!

You can usually tell the difference between someone who truly believes this and someone who doesn't by how they live their life.

No, you can't, precisely because so many adopt the simplistic interpretation of the Gospels.

If you truly accept Christ's sacrifice and you want to respond to his amazing gift then why would you want to go around beating up other people?

There are ways of beating up on people without actually physically bashing them. Here's a recent example that just came to my mind. Around here the issue of religion in schools is very big. A local editor has often written on this subject, claiming that the lack of Christian teaching in the schools has caused the deterioration of morals among the young. Several months ago this guy wrote an impassioned editorial against the idea of "turn the other cheek". Despite this man's alleged support for a Christian America I have never once seen him write on behalf of mercy or compassion. There are a lot of people like him, and you're not going to get far with them when you try to tell them that their hard-hearted attitude doesn't qualify them as Christians.

I think God is happy when we do good deeds and put Jesus in the centre of our life but always remember that the Good deeds aren't what saves us. If you had two good people, one was a Christian the other was not, then the Christian would be saved as he recognised the value of Christ's sacrifice on the cross for us, whilst the other did not and in the end that is what it ultimately comes down to.

Yes, I know that passage. Unfortunately many will interpret this as meaning that good deeds aren't necessary at all. It's that sort of thinking which allowed "white sheeted" Christains to exist here in the South.

One cannot enter the kingdom of heaven by good deeds alone as good deeds by human standards are like filthy rags to God.

Is it the good deeds themselves or the false pride and inflated self-estimation that goes with them? Perhaps what Christ railed against was a belief by some in a sort of celestial balance sheet which could be bought off by sacrifices and token charity. I for one have always valued the parable of the Good Samaritan.

I'm upset that you experienced that kind of hatred by other Christians, I guess that it all ties up with the type of world we live in, and it makes the need for us to continually to turn to Christ more of a necessity because it shows that Sin still affects us all, just as Christians we realise the negative effect and we turn to Jesus for help.

Someone on this board hasd a sig really appropriate for this. The quotation is: "Chritianity is not a religion that has been tried and found wanting, it is a religion that has been tried and found too hard." Perhaps that is a key insight into the meaning of Christ's promise of forgiveness.

And yes I step back from my previous statement about there being 1 billlion christians in the world. After thinking about it, there are probably alot less, but if anything it just further strengthens the stance the Bible takes on this. See the Parable of the weeds. Tragic yet so true.

Alas, too many think themselves the gardner, yet have only a brown thumb.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Anyway, why don't you read it. You may learn something, and think of the poor starving author you would be helping.

Because it contains nothing new. The whole "no new information in DNA" line has been tried by Creationists for well over 20 years. It was shown to be fallacious then by actual scientists who actually understand how DNA works.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't suppose you read over this review, Urban Ranger.

I did. Nothing the reviewer said has bot been covered by the reviewer immediately above him:

Stale platitudes, arrogantly misrepresented as science, November 1, 2003
Reviewer: Tami Noble from Houston, TX

However, that was not my point. My point was if Lincoln wrote his own review of his own book to puff up the review rating on Amazon, what other disingenuous means would he commit just to further his ends?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Anyway, why don't you read it. You may learn something, and think of the poor starving author you would be helping.

Lincoln, we debated the main thrust of your book on Aployton here several years back. In fact, both threads are still in the archives. At the end, you failed to support your arguments when challenged vigorously.

Michael Behe, a real biochemist with a doctoral degree, failed to make a dent in evolution with his "irreducible complexity" argument (which was quickly shown to be yet another falsehood).

[Urban Ranger]

Black Knight,

The so-called outside historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth has been discussed many times before at great length, generally between Ben Kenobi on one side and Boris Godunov and myself on the other. Please search the archives first.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Black Knight,

The so-called outside historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth has been discussed many times before at great length, generally between Ben Kenobi on one side and Boris Godunov and myself on the other. Please search the archives first.

This debate has been going on for 2000 years!

Do you think that when Godfrey of Bulloigne was storming the gates of Jerusalem in the name of the Pope that he bothered to use the damn search function??!?!?!

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kucinich
ANY claim about the universe is scientific (well, it's in the realm of science, at least ). Some are, by their nature, untestable, but that's why we use Occam's Razor.

Basically, you're saying religionists are trolls by their very nature, so don't bite

I like biting, though

No, we have different definitions of "troll," though. Don't forget, I'm a "religionist." I don't know much about Occam's razor, but it seems stupid to sneer at people for following the advice of several people from thousands of years ago, and support your sneering by following the precedent of a single man from hundreds of years ago. So yourself.

As for "simplest explanation," you run into trouble there. You're in the rhetorical fishbowl here, remember. It's a pretty big statement to make when you can't ever see the whole picture at stake. It looks "simple" to you, but the way chimps fish for termites looks simple until you try it. Occam's Razor might be more sensibly applied to a question in a laboratory, where the full set of affecting circumstances are understood. Here it's sorta arbitrary.

[Dr Strangelove]

One can always ask where the stuff that went "bang" came from.