Call for ecumenical throwdown!

[Ben Kenobi]

And that I'm just looking for arguments here for things that doesn't make 100% sense.

And I'm trying to help answer these points. I don't see why after the disciples stole the body that they would want to draw attention to themselves by proclaiming the resurrection of Christ. Why not hide out and wait for all the fuss to die down?

[Ben Kenobi]

this is how religion survives... by brainwashing the young before they can think for themselves... I can think of no greater betrayal that a parent can commit upon a child. Parents have a responsibility to teach children about the world. But instead of teaching them about the world, they brainwash them about myths, superstition and fairy tales.

Put yourself in the eyes of the parent who is a believer. Even though they believe that people should choose for themselves, they feel they have a responsibility to share their religion with their children, and to teach them about their religion, just as you would say they have a responsibility to teach them about the world. For them religion is a part of the world, and to neglect teaching them about religion gives them a poorer view of the world.

Growing up its like... oooh Santa, the Easter Bunny... that stuff is fine... you learn one day those are not real... but then its like... Jesus!!! oh wait... that's the fairy tale some of the adults BELIEVE IN!!!! WTF?

Whoa, santa isn't real?

funny how religionists fall back on "empirical knowledge" to justify their beliefs...

Religionists? I'm talking about folks that believe the only way we can obtain reliable knowledge is through experimentation and questioning beliefs based on reason. I didn't know you liked Aristotle so much.

well, you can live in the Christian world of self-hate and tell yourself you are a sinner... but me? I am a good person. I don't steal from people. I don't kill. I don't hate people because of their skin color, their ethnicity, their SEXUAL ORIENTATION or anything else I can think of... I am courteous to people... I mind my own business, clean up after myself and don't bother people.

Oh, I suppose you think I walk around with a badge that says, I hate gays, eh?

I haven't hurt anyone here on Earth and I don't need God (if he exists) to forgive me for anything... and if he is going to send me to hell for not believing in him or for some procedural crap regarding forgiveness, then he is a dumbass and doesn't deserve to be worshipped...

It is obvious that Christianity (and every other religion) has been created by humans. They are horribly flawed. They contradict themselves. They have major logical fallacies.

And all I asked is whether there is anyone who is good. Look sava, why does Christianity bother you so much?

[Pekka]

yeah, they could have waited, undeground.. for sures. I think this is once again one of them twofold options, either wait until the fuzz goes away a bit, or come out blazing. And since they were believers, I don't see why not just coming out blazing would be a bad option. Then again, it proved to be just that later on, for their personal sacrifices that is.

Then again, would the fuzz go down, they'd most likely have to hide forever. And even if they didn't see the resurrection and claimed so to save themselves, you know it could be possible that it didn't crumble their faith on Jesus anyway. Or maybe they thought he had resurrected, but the body is still there, they just don't understand how it happened. Or maybe they had an unusual experience, thinking that was the sign or what ever.

What happened, I guess we don't know for sure, but I believe that there are many possible scenarios that would explain the behaviour of everyone just fine, and that's why I don't buy into the motive game at this point. They are indicators, but not solid in argumentation IMO. But of course they can be brought up, as it adds to the what ever evidence there is already.

And why would someone risk their lives if they're not sure, ti happens all the time. Even today in some war, some guy(s) ran out to drag a body of their friend who was already dead, just so that it wouldn't be left in the enemy hands. Just that they would save the body, risk their live in not what could happen, but in real time hailing bullets, riskin the possible torture if injured and caught doing it, and if caught, maybe even lie for a while just to get more torture, so that his other friends will get into safety first, or even dying for it. Just because of one body. Happens all the time, with friendships, or just plain sense of duty or honour, or a promise made. It's extraordinary effort, but people like these do it every day. And imagine Jesus, and his followers then, they must have had a great bond, a deep friendship. That alone would be motive enough to go through pretty amazing things, just to save a body. Besides, if they, in addition to that, believed he was the son of God.. no problem.

[Whaleboy]

Religion as a means to make people happy and live fulfilled, pleasant lives

Religion as a means determining morality or cosmology, or interfering with politics, science, or anything outside of the personal conscience

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Put yourself in the eyes of the parent who is a believer. Even though they believe that people should choose for themselves, they feel they have a responsibility to share their religion with their children, and to teach them about their religion, just as you would say they have a responsibility to teach them about the world. For them religion is a part of the world, and to neglect teaching them about religion gives them a poorer view of the world.

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

Oh, I suppose you think I walk around with a badge that says, I hate gays, eh?

I don't think you are a gay basher. But it's obvious you feel they are leading an immoral lifestyle. And that is purely because of religion. And to me, that is ignorance. And on top of that, you are against gay marriage... meaning you want to use government to discriminate against gay people (not allowing them the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples). So you can understand why I emphasized that part.

And all I asked is whether there is anyone who is good. Look sava, why does Christianity bother you so much?

Don't take this the wrong way... any belief in supertition and myth, or devotion to blind faith and ignorance bothers me... but we happen to be discussing Christianity. And Christianity is such a huge part of what I perceive to be many problems in American society. If this were a discussion about Islam, you would find I have many of the same objections. So don't think I am just ganging up on Christianity okay.

There are many problems I have with Christianity. It's hard to really go into it in detail. Most of it is not about the Bible itself or the religion itself, but rather, the people who abuse it, interpret it and twist it for their own purposes.

Ignorance is what bothers me. Belief in superstition in myth bothers me.

Like before when I was asking Jon Miller about if he believed in Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. He said probably not.... that they were metaphors. But he said he believed that Jesus was real and did all the supernatural stuff.

It's MIND BOGGLING to me.

How can a reasonably intelligent human being possibly believe in this stuff!!!

It's like, Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark is proven to be FALSE... IT DID NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY!!!!

so then logic would say, maybe the rest of the Bible is not entirely accurate?

but oh no...

I just don't understand it....

It really is a phenomenon.

BK, I have read you attack evolution saying there is not evidence to support this and that... yadda yadda yadda...

Why aren't you as critical about the Bible as you are critical about evolution?

There is evidence supporting evolution! You can go to museums and laboratories and see everything with your own eyes!!!

It is real, it is supported by evidence. It is a theory, yes, but everything is supported!!!

But yet the Bible... Jesus... all the accounts of his existence, written 60 years after he lived.... and then all the stories, translated from different languages over and over again over the course of hundreds of years...

Yet you trust the Bible as a source UNCONDITIONALLY!!!

WHY??!??!?!?!

I don't understand it.

Help me understand BK.

[Ben Kenobi]

What happened, I guess we don't know for sure, but I believe that there are many possible scenarios that would explain the behaviour of everyone just fine, and that's why I don't buy into the motive game at this point. They are indicators, but not solid in argumentation IMO. But of course they can be brought up, as it adds to the what ever evidence there is already.

I don't know if you've done any history, but this sort of thing crops up rather often. You can speculate about what really may have happened, but in the end all you have to go on is the testimony written by the people who were there, and knew folks who were also there. Given the choice between the speculation, as what might have happened, and between what these folks said happened, you have to go with what they say.

[Ben Kenobi]

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

I really can't say given my own upbringing apart from the church. But I have met families that have all grown up in the Catholic church together, and it made me sad to realise what I've missed out on, and what I continue to miss. My path has been a lonelier one that's for sure.

I don't think you are a gay basher. But it's obvious you feel they are leading an immoral lifestyle. And that is purely because of religion.

Partially so, but what changed my mind on this point, was the evidence that gay people hurt themselves, in terms of health problems, and the rest. It made me realise that you aren't helping gay people by encouraging them to sleep with each other.

And to me, that is ignorance. And on top of that, you are against gay marriage... meaning you want to use government to discriminate against gay people (not allowing them the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples).

Yes I believe some forms of discrimination are good. I feel that the government should help married folks out where they do not help folks in other relationships.

So you can understand why I emphasized that part.

Yeah, I'm rather, uh, outspoken, about those topics.

Don't take this the wrong way... any belief in supertition and myth, or devotion to blind faith and ignorance bothers me... but we happen to be discussing Christianity. And Christianity is such a huge part of what I perceive to be many problems in American society. If this were a discussion about Islam, you would find I have many of the same objections. So don't think I am just ganging up on Christianity okay.

I have to agree with you about blind faith. I think people should believe in Christianity because they feel Christianity is more true then other things, and that they should have some understanding of what Christianity teaches. There are plenty of folks out there who haven't been taught well.

Like before when I was asking Jon Miller about if he believed in Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. He said probably not.... that they were metaphors. But he said he believed that Jesus was real and did all the supernatural stuff.

It's MIND BOGGLING to me.

How can a reasonably intelligent human being possibly believe in this stuff!!!

It's like, Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark is proven to be FALSE... IT DID NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY!!!!

First of all, there is evidence for a flood in the Mesopotamian area. Secondly, the biblical account does not go into great detail about the workings of the flood, or how creatures come into the world. It is not meant to be a scientific account of the way in which the world works. That being said, it is quite a leap to go and say that the biblical account of creation is inaccurate in what they do say.

so then logic would say, maybe the rest of the Bible is not entirely accurate?

Interpretation is an interesting subject. Not all of the bible is the same genre. There are parts that are more symbolic then others, and folks need to be aware of that when they are crossing between the different books of the bible. So just because the account of creation isn't as detailed as the more historical books like the Gospels, doesn't mean that either are incorrect.

BK, I have read you attack evolution saying there is not evidence to support this and that... yadda yadda yadda...

Why aren't you as critical about the Bible as you are critical about evolution?

You never saw me before. You'd laugh if you saw me then and some of the arguments I used to bring up. I didn't accept everything right away, particularly about Jesus Christ. I could accept that there was a God, but I wasn't sure about Jesus for quite some time. I basically sat on my bible and didn't do much about it until I had some real crises in my life.

This, really is the argument that helped me trust scripture, in that we have so many documents of some of the most trusted folks for ancient historians. We have far, and away more copies, on several orders of magnitude of the scriptures, and ones that are far closer to the original. If we are to trust these other works of ancient history, then we should also trust the accounts of the Gospels. We can be more sure of the Gospels then about anything else.

If that counts as an unconditional acceptance of scripture, I really can't say I agree with you. It's a much more limited perspective then plenty of other folks out there.

[beingofone]

Pekka:

I don't take it as the reasoning why from one or two passages, that are derived from writings of man when my own logic fights against the very idea.

I agree with you - so does the scripture I quoted. How did you derive the opposite?

At first it would take some, but later on, not really, since the snowball effect started happening.

With all due respect, you are not thinking about what I am saying. To initially start the ball rolling would require a 'substantial' amount of persons and considerable eyewitnesses.
If you were to say a resurrection occured today and have it stick for a hundred years from now - how many eyewitnesses would it require to have legitimacy?

You say so many believe the 'myth' so how could it be myth, well, most actually believes it is in fact a myth that Jesus was immortal. We are minority.

Yes we are sir, but think about the time in which they lived. It was also a minority position to believe he had resurrected. It was also a capital crime.

This one is a better argument, however not rock solid. Even today we have cults with mass suicides, who believe their leader is a person of greater power. It's not that they lied and participated in mass suicide, it's that they believed, and were ready to die for it. Lots of people are ready, well not eager but if it has to be done, then ready to die for their beliefs.

Again with all due respect - you are not understanding.

If someone puts you on a rack and says "Just say you are not an alien from the planet Krypton, and we will not pull your body apart".

If you were participating in the 'myth' that you had seen a man resurrect and you had never seen him with your own eyes, why would you be tortured to death for saying you had "seen him after he resurrected" when it was a lie?
Would all of them to the last, die horribly for what they knew for a fact to be a lie?

And if they stole it, they'd be the main suspects anyway, so instead of crying that to the judge, they should get as much power behind as possible, to not face the consequences, to get the public behind. That's a power play right there.

All they had to say was "he did not resurrect" the Romans were simply lookng to discredit this new found movement.
It is ironclad logic that says out of all the apostles someone would have said "its all a lie" not one of them did that.
Also consider the many hundreds that died aside from the apostles that said they had seen him after he died.

Isn't that like saying that salvation goes through Jesus, but not necessarily, and actually most religions in the world that have God in it the way we do, they'll be saved too?

It is like a man on a deserted island who has never known anyone who was a believer. He looks up at the sky and says "I do not know your name but I know you are there".
You do not need the Bible to know God, you just need a willing heart.

Oh and that 'proven by math' was horrible. As a scientist and mathematician, I find that so horrible, it has nothing right. It has everything wrong. It doesn't even .. this 'theory' has no merits what so ever, it is not mathematics, it's not science, it's bunch of wild assumptions, random odds pulled out of a hat, and the conclusion of weird.

Believe me, that has absolutely 0 merit and in fact don't use it ever when debating, it's that horrible and will make you look bad.

I submit to your authority as my field of studies are theologian/philosopher/historian. I did find it interesting that a prof from such a respected school as Oxford (he is an expert in Bayesian statistics BTW) would put his reputation on the line with his analysis.

I do not know enough about Bayesian Statistics to have an opinion - so I yield to your expertise.
I have read the whole paper and he follows the rule of statistical analysis.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


It is. There are many different beliefs arround. Different types of christianity. Atheism, humanism, budhaism, and others.

So it is a choice. And even a biased choice (Which your choice likely is) is still a choice. If you raised a child in a home where he/she never heard about religion until the age of 18, you would be biasing that child against religion.

Still a bias.

Jon Miller

Ridiculous.

So if you don't have sex until you're 18, you're biased against sex?

You said it was just a matter of choice. Statistical data indicates that it is overwhelmingly a result of your birth. How many Muslims are born in Nebraska or Wyoming? How many Hindus in Iceland? How many Jews are not children of Jews? ...

Some do simply reject or neglect their religious upbringing. A very small number make a considered and informed selection from alternative (ie. choose).

Religion is overwhelmingly an accident of birth.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Religion is overwhelmingly an accident of birth.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You can speculate about what really may have happened, but in the end all you have to go on is the testimony written by the people who were there, and knew folks who were also there. Given the choice between the speculation, as what might have happened, and between what these folks said happened, you have to go with what they say.

There it is, Sava, in all its glory.

Given the choice between THINKING and BELIEVING, you have to go with BELIEVING.

There are two kinds of people in the world Sava.

There are those who want to BELIEVE, and those who want to UNDERSTAND. And those who want to believe do NOT want to understand.

And that is all you really need to know about believers.

[beingofone]

There are those who want to BELIEVE, and those who want to UNDERSTAND. And those who want to believe do NOT want to understand.

There was a small find called the Nag Hammadi scrolls you might want to check into before you think it is all just 'blind faith'.
These texts are almost two thousand years old and confirm the historical eveidence.
It is not just faith that I believe in Christ but the evidence is overwhelming but you have to do your homework.

[Pekka]

"If you were to say a resurrection occured today and have it stick for a hundred years from now - how many eyewitnesses would it require to have legitimacy?"

How about more than 0?

"It was also a minority position to believe he had resurrected. It was also a capital crime."

Yes but that was 2000 years ago.

And on top of that, Christianity is not the fastest growing religion either.

"If you were participating in the 'myth' that you had seen a man resurrect and you had never seen him with your own eyes, why would you be tortured to death for saying you had "seen him after he resurrected" when it was a lie?"

This again, is a motive game. Not solid argumentation. Maybe they stole the body and agreed to lie that he resurrected, to save their own butt and not turn the body in. The same reason, that they were killed for.

Why would you kill someone when they say they saw someone resurrecting, and torture them? They were facing a powerful opponent, so they needed a powerful backup to have a chance to survive. Which didn't happen. But they couldn't see in the future themselves. SO maybe it just backfired.

Why would muslim extremists blow themselves up and think they go into heaven with bunch of virgins, because they'd die in the process. Furthermore, why are the proud and happy about that? Let's not underestimate peo ple and their motives, or think that there is only one way people think.

"
All they had to say was "he did not resurrect" the Romans were simply lookng to discredit this new found movement."

Not necessarily. They might have been killed anyway for stealing the body. And maybe not all would have believed that version either, that he didn't resurrect. It's not THAT simple.

Anyway yeah, I'm sure that professor is more highly educated in math than I am, but trust me, that theory was the biggest pile of crap I've seen in a long time. It has no merits what so ever. It doesn't use mathematics, it doesn't even fill the requirements of any kind of theory, really. You can't use math at all in proving this, and if you tried, that's not the way to go with it. It's just assumptions. It's not even close being a real theory. Just trust me on this one. I don't know why he would put his name on risk with it. I guess he had no name to begin with or something, but he should be discredited as mathematician just because of that.

[Sava]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


There it is, Sava, in all its glory.

Given the choice between THINKING and BELIEVING, you have to go with BELIEVING.

There are two kinds of people in the world Sava.

There are those who want to BELIEVE, and those who want to UNDERSTAND. And those who want to believe do NOT want to understand.

And that is all you really need to know about believers.

Thank you.

You have really shed some light on this for me.

Some people just really want to live in the dark.

Believers don't care about truth. They don't care about understanding the world we live in, the true nature of the universe, etc. It literally is blind faith.

Ignorance is bliss.

It's really a shame though. What is to be done?

How is humanity to make any progress with so many people like this?

Is education the answer? It seems like believers will just ignore the facts. They will ignore the evidence, even when it is staring them directly in the face!

And in America, they are trying to sabotage education! It is criminal!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I don't know if you've done any history, but this sort of thing crops up rather often. You can speculate about what really may have happened, but in the end all you have to go on is the testimony written by the people who were there, and knew folks who were also there. Given the choice between the speculation, as what might have happened, and between what these folks said happened, you have to go with what they say.

Fun Fact: JFK won the 1960 election by a mere 120,00 votes out of about 68.5 million cast -- a margin of 0.175%. But a few years after he was "martyred," more that 2/3 of all Americans polled claimed that they had voted for him in 1960.

Now, if people could "misremember" (I'll be generous) their own activities just a few years after the event, when there was easily-accessed hard data that contradicted them, why on earth should we treat unverifiable accounts written 30-60 years after the fact as infallible?

Put another way: The historical truth of the Gospels hasn't been subject to nearly as much scrutiny as the historical truth of the Iliad, and we still can't say for certain whether there was ever a war such as the one Homer describes. If we won't let Homer off the hook yet, why should Matthew et al. get a pass?