Conquer Club

Continuation of Christianity debate.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Postby daddy1gringo on Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:55 am

Guiscard wrote:
Jenos Ridan wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
griffin_slayer wrote:exactly, do you think the apostles would've died for a lie? i mean all they had to do was admit that it was a lie. take peter for example, he thought himself unworthy to die the same death as JESUS he asked to be crucified up side down. that's devotion.


What do Islamic suicide bombers die for?


Are you saying that Jesus never existed?

Figures, that would be the first thing you would try and aim for.


No. I think you're missing my point.

The fact that the apostles would die for something doesn't make it true. If you accept martyrdom as evidence of true religious message then you would also have to accept that, in line with his argument Islamic martyrs prove the existence of the Islamic God - something directly in conflict with the beliefs of most Christians.

I don't see where you got Jesus not existing from...


No, the fact that the apostles and others who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected does not in itself prove it to be true. It just dis-proves the idea that they made it all up. Lots of people give their lives for lots of beliefs and causes and it doesn't prove the belief true or the cause right. What it does prove is that the martyr belived in it. Who would die for what they knew to be a lie?
But in another sense, it does prove that Jesus actually rose because the conspiracy theory is the only alternative that is half plausible. The others are that the people who knew him best, (including his mother, she was there at pentecost) mistook someone else for the risen Christ, or that the Romans' time perfected method of execution failed to actually kill him, and he had a recovery any hospital would be proud of in a damp, dirty, sealed cave, and this barely-alive patient rolled a huge stone, defeated the guards, and looked good enough to pass for the victorious son of God. Those are scientifically and historically ludicrous.
User avatar
Lieutenant daddy1gringo
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:47 am
Location: Connecticut yankee expatriated in Houston, Texas area, by way of Isabela, NW PR

Postby unriggable on Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:29 am

daddy1gringo wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
Jenos Ridan wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
griffin_slayer wrote:exactly, do you think the apostles would've died for a lie? i mean all they had to do was admit that it was a lie. take peter for example, he thought himself unworthy to die the same death as JESUS he asked to be crucified up side down. that's devotion.


What do Islamic suicide bombers die for?


Are you saying that Jesus never existed?

Figures, that would be the first thing you would try and aim for.


No. I think you're missing my point.

The fact that the apostles would die for something doesn't make it true. If you accept martyrdom as evidence of true religious message then you would also have to accept that, in line with his argument Islamic martyrs prove the existence of the Islamic God - something directly in conflict with the beliefs of most Christians.

I don't see where you got Jesus not existing from...


No, the fact that the apostles and others who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected does not in itself prove it to be true. It just dis-proves the idea that they made it all up. Lots of people give their lives for lots of beliefs and causes and it doesn't prove the belief true or the cause right. What it does prove is that the martyr belived in it. Who would die for what they knew to be a lie?
But in another sense, it does prove that Jesus actually rose because the conspiracy theory is the only alternative that is half plausible. The others are that the people who knew him best, (including his mother, she was there at pentecost) mistook someone else for the risen Christ, or that the Romans' time perfected method of execution failed to actually kill him, and he had a recovery any hospital would be proud of in a damp, dirty, sealed cave, and this barely-alive patient rolled a huge stone, defeated the guards, and looked good enough to pass for the victorious son of God. Those are scientifically and historically ludicrous.


Good first post. Welcome to CC
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Guiscard on Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:05 am

daddy1gringo wrote:No, the fact that the apostles and others who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected does not in itself prove it to be true. It just dis-proves the idea that they made it all up. Lots of people give their lives for lots of beliefs and causes and it doesn't prove the belief true or the cause right. What it does prove is that the martyr belived in it. Who would die for what they knew to be a lie?
But in another sense, it does prove that Jesus actually rose because the conspiracy theory is the only alternative that is half plausible. The others are that the people who knew him best, (including his mother, she was there at pentecost) mistook someone else for the risen Christ, or that the Romans' time perfected method of execution failed to actually kill him, and he had a recovery any hospital would be proud of in a damp, dirty, sealed cave, and this barely-alive patient rolled a huge stone, defeated the guards, and looked good enough to pass for the victorious son of God. Those are scientifically and historically ludicrous.


Your argument, however, depends on the 100% accuracy and authenticity of the Bible. That's a whole different debate. There are arguments for and against various different authorships and, if we are to treat the text with the same degree of impartial analysis and criticism we would any other historical text (theistic history or not), we would at least conclude that the matter is in no way clear. Secondly, and more fundamentally, it is pretty much impossible for someone to chronicle their own death, so why should we take someone else's obviously subjective account as gospel (no pun intended)?
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Guiscard
 
Posts: 4103
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar

Postby MR. Nate on Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:29 am

Guiscard wrote:Secondly, and more fundamentally, it is pretty much impossible for someone to chronicle their own death, so why should we take someone else's obviously subjective account as gospel (no pun intended)?


Usually, if we've got four sources on anything, and they're the only sources that record a particular event, we don't discard them completely, as many have in this particular case. You don't take them as truth, but no better explanation has been pointed out, either. So best evidence (disregarding bias) points to a miraculous resurrection.
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?

End the Flame Wars.
User avatar
Corporal MR. Nate
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am
Location: Locked in the warehouse.

Postby AlgyTaylor on Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:46 am

So if I said there was a giant pink elephant sitting opposite me doing sudoku at speeds that only you or I could dream of, would that mean that the best evidence points to the existence of said elephant and it's incredible ability to do Japanese puzzles?
Corporal AlgyTaylor
 
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:35 pm
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby unriggable on Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:50 am

MR. Nate wrote:So best evidence (disregarding bias) points to a miraculous resurrection.


Bullshit. That's like saying everything in the book of herodotus is the truth since it is for the most part the only viable source. There are laws of nature, you know, and just because the only written version of the crucifixion is widely accepted despite breaking these laws doesn't necessarily make it true.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby MR. Nate on Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:57 am

AlgyTaylor wrote:So if I said there was a giant pink elephant sitting opposite me doing sudoku at speeds that only you or I could dream of, would that mean that the best evidence points to the existence of said elephant and it's incredible ability to do Japanese puzzles?
If three other people agreed with you, and you were all prepared to die for that particular testimony, it would be hard for me to dismiss it out of hand.

unriggable wrote:Bullshit. That's like saying everything in the book of herodotus is the truth since it is for the most part the only viable source. There are laws of nature, you know, and just because the only written version of the crucifixion is widely accepted despite breaking these laws doesn't necessarily make it true.
So your saying your bias against supernatural events causes you to reject the resurrection account, without examining the evidence?
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?

End the Flame Wars.
User avatar
Corporal MR. Nate
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am
Location: Locked in the warehouse.

Postby MeDeFe on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:00 am

The evidence being?
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Postby unriggable on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:04 am

What is the evidence? The Bible? There are too many holes in the Bible for it to be trustworthy.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Symmetry on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:06 am

This is an interesting debate, but I should point out to Mr Nate that four chapters of the same book don't constitute four sources, even if the book claims to be by multiple authors.

Faith is the driving force of all religion. If you try and engage on grounds of logic you are missing the point. Anybody who tries to aegue that religion has a logical basis, or anyone who tries to suggest that religion is a fallacy will come to a point where they face the fact that religion is not science, and that most of us have some sort of blind faith.

There is logic within religion, but it has little external relation to science beyond the same drive for truth that motivates us all.
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Postby MR. Nate on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:09 am

Four separate written accounts of a resurrection, supplemented by a willingness for the eyewitnesses to die for their testimony. The "holes" most people use to disregard Biblical accounts begin with the anti-supernatural bias. So please point out the holes that don't assume the supernatural is impossible.

The lack of a body, despite the desire of multiple authorities to obtain said body to squelch said resurrection accounts.

The lack of a credible alternative.
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?

End the Flame Wars.
User avatar
Corporal MR. Nate
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am
Location: Locked in the warehouse.

Postby unriggable on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:15 am

MR. Nate wrote:Four separate written accounts of a resurrection, supplemented by a willingness for the eyewitnesses to die for their testimony. The "holes" most people use to disregard Biblical accounts begin with the anti-supernatural bias. So please point out the holes that don't assume the supernatural is impossible.

The lack of a body, despite the desire of multiple authorities to obtain said body to squelch said resurrection accounts.

The lack of a credible alternative.


Well see if the evidence is clearly impossible then I don't think it's evidence is it? You need a little rationality in what you believe in. The only reason you accept it is because as a child anything you are told is the truth. That's the reason for all these religious wars, because when you are a child a fact is a fact and there is no difference.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Chris the Eagle on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:17 am

The thing that is missed by most when talking about and discussing the bible is that not everyone will believe. I myself am a believer in Jesus Christ as Son of the One True Living God. Now not everyone will see it that way, I would dare say that some other christians may disagree on topics of the bible that I strongly believe in. But Faith is the key to belief in Christ. Faith consists of 3 parts: Belief, Trust, and Commitment. Take these and apply them to thing you have "faith" in your life. Everyone believes in something, what is your something... and are you willing to die for it...
User avatar
Corporal Chris the Eagle
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:21 pm

Postby Symmetry on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:20 am

There are no holes in the account of the ressurection. Everything that happens, happens for a reason. Everything is explained.

The problem with your argument is that you say supernatural and impossible as if they are very different things. Can you think of a supernatural or divine occurence that is impossible for God? If not, then you must be saying that nothing is impossible. Surely that is what you meant.

The sources thing- that has to be taken on faith. The Bible was written by many people, but it's been appropriated by many faiths, and edited and translated according to the times. It's now altered enough to support such a wide variety of views, and Jesus's words have been shifted into so many languages and times, that it would be better to ask you what version of the Bible you belived in, rather than ask you about your religious orientation.
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Postby MeDeFe on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:26 am

MR. Nate wrote:Four separate written accounts of a resurrection, supplemented by a willingness for the eyewitnesses to die for their testimony. The "holes" most people use to disregard Biblical accounts begin with the anti-supernatural bias. So please point out the holes that don't assume the supernatural is impossible.

The lack of a body, despite the desire of multiple authorities to obtain said body to squelch said resurrection accounts.

The lack of a credible alternative.

4 accounts written several decades after the event and several decades apart from each other? I'm not sure if that can qualify as evidence.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Postby unriggable on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:37 am

Symmetry wrote:There are no holes in the account of the ressurection. Everything that happens, happens for a reason. Everything is explained.

The problem with your argument is that you say supernatural and impossible as if they are very different things. Can you think of a supernatural or divine occurence that is impossible for God? If not, then you must be saying that nothing is impossible. Surely that is what you meant.

The sources thing- that has to be taken on faith. The Bible was written by many people, but it's been appropriated by many faiths, and edited and translated according to the times. It's now altered enough to support such a wide variety of views, and Jesus's words have been shifted into so many languages and times, that it would be better to ask you what version of the Bible you belived in, rather than ask you about your religious orientation.


He's right - in aramaic for example, the word for lady and virgin were the same.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby MR. Nate on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:40 am

MeDeFe wrote:4 accounts written several decades after the event and several decades apart from each other? I'm not sure if that can qualify as evidence.

Are you disputing the details of the account or the basic premise? For the details (disregarding my belief in Divine inspiration) you may have a point, but as for the kernel of the resurrection, it becomes difficult to dismiss because they forgot over a period of time.

Symmetry wrote:Faith is the driving force of all religion. If you try and engage on grounds of logic you are missing the point. Anybody who tries to argue that religion has a logical basis, or anyone who tries to suggest that religion is a fallacy will come to a point where they face the fact that religion is not science, and that most of us have some sort of blind faith.

There is logic within religion, but it has little external relation to science beyond the same drive for truth that motivates us all.


You say I'm misguided, I say you're deceived, and we're at the same place we started. I would contend that if you move past your presupposition that faith and science cannot work together, and take the raw data of both, (rather than the interpretations others offer you) you can come to a point where the science and the religion work in harmony.
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?

End the Flame Wars.
User avatar
Corporal MR. Nate
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am
Location: Locked in the warehouse.

Postby MeDeFe on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:44 am

MR. Nate wrote:as for the kernel of the resurrection, it becomes difficult to dismiss because they forgot over a period of time.

Can you explain what you mean by that, because it's not entirely clear to me.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Postby unriggable on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:54 am

MR. Nate wrote:You say I'm misguided, I say you're deceived.


Decieved? It takes more than a witness to prove a case.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Symmetry on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:55 am

Thanks for the reply Mr Nate:

I don't think that science and faith are incapable of cooperation, and I'm not sure that I said that you were misguided. Many people I admire have been religious, many have been scientists, but most have been both.
You seem to have a lot of people here willing to argue against you, so maybe that was the reason you misunderstood. You do, however, seem to have sought a debate from which you expected no change of view. I came into this a little unprepared for someone who would dismiss me as deceived (perhaps a deceiver?).

Faith has never been so weak as to disallow the opinions of others. If you really believe that you know the truth already, then perhaps an internet forum isn't the best place for you.
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Postby MR. Nate on Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:03 pm

Time may cause memories to erode, but the major event around which that memory was formed is not forgotten. So, you may forget whether your grandfather's funeral was at Ferguson or Cole Funeral home, but the fact that your grandfather died, (or the detail that it was the 1st time you saw your father cry) aren't things that you forget, even after 30 or 40 years.

So if you want to argue that some details are amiss, I won't argue (I won't agree, either) But to say that somehow they made up the resurrection itself seems disingenuous.

And, just for the record, isn't the fact that they were written seperately and not simultaneously, but still agree on a number of details an argument FOR their accuracy?
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?

End the Flame Wars.
User avatar
Corporal MR. Nate
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am
Location: Locked in the warehouse.

Postby unriggable on Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:09 pm

MR. Nate wrote:Time may cause memories to erode, but the major event around which that memory was formed is not forgotten. So, you may forget whether your grandfather's funeral was at Ferguson or Cole Funeral home, but the fact that your grandfather died, (or the detail that it was the 1st time you saw your father cry) aren't things that you forget, even after 30 or 40 years.


Yes but people see alot of things. For all we know it could have a guy who looked like Jesus, and was subsequently glorified by the writers.

Keep in mind that because people see the loch ness monster doesn't necessarily make it true.

So if you want to argue that some details are amiss, I won't argue (I won't agree, either) But to say that somehow they made up the resurrection itself seems disingenuous.


Not really, I'll show you how easy it is to make things up like that: Hitler said in Mein Kampf (I think) that he would rewrite the Bible to include Jesus fighting the Jews. That easy. All it takes is a little power, and there was plenty of that in the dark and middle ages.

And, just for the record, isn't the fact that they were written seperately and not simultaneously, but still agree on a number of details an argument FOR their accuracy?


Nothing rewriting can't fix. The texts were gathered and I'm sure any contradiction would have been fixed.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby MR. Nate on Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:25 pm

Symmetry wrote:You do, however, seem to have sought a debate from which you expected no change of view. I came into this a little unprepared for someone who would dismiss me as deceived (perhaps a deceiver?).

Faith has never been so weak as to disallow the opinions of others. If you really believe that you know the truth already, then perhaps an internet forum isn't the best place for you.


I didn't intend to point you out imply you are a deceiver. And I only said you were deceived because I hear so many discounting the connections between theology and the other sciences. I have come to hold to the (perhaps archaic) opinion that theology is still the queen of the sciences, and tend to react strongly to what I perceive as attacks on that position:
Symmetry wrote:If you try and engage on grounds of logic you are missing the point. . . . most of us have some sort of blind faith.


unriggable wrote:Yes but people see alot of things. For all we know it could have a guy who looked like Jesus, and was subsequently glorified by the writers.
Keep in mind that because people see the loch ness monster doesn't necessarily make it true.
I'll show you how easy it is to make things up like that: Hitler said in Mein Kampf (I think) that he would rewrite the Bible to include Jesus fighting the Jews. That easy. All it takes is a little power, and there was plenty of that in the dark and middle ages.
Nothing rewriting can't fix. The texts were gathered and I'm sure any contradiction would have been fixed.

So your response to solid textual evidence is extensive re-writing and editing through the middle ages? What about the fact that Duke University has nearly complete copies from around 250? Which pope edited those?
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?

End the Flame Wars.
User avatar
Corporal MR. Nate
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am
Location: Locked in the warehouse.

Postby griffin_slayer on Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:36 pm

Jenos Ridan wrote:
griffin_slayer wrote:
Jehan wrote:can you be forgiven if you dont ask for forgiveness?


yes



And I suppose a lazy man should receive free food ahead of another who actually goes to work? One who contributes back to society?

Jesus died, in perhaps the most brutal way possible and top it off, he committed no crime. If you were walking along, and some pychopath turned a gun on you and someone else took the bullet for you, would you not feel some need to be grateful and give your condolences to the family of the decesed?



i meant yes you CAN. ok?
Image
User avatar
Cook griffin_slayer
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:06 am
Location: on wii

Postby griffin_slayer on Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:50 pm

This is an interesting debate, but I should point out to Mr Nate that four chapters of the same book don't constitute four sources, even if the book claims to be by multiple authors.




four different books under the same cover.
Image
User avatar
Cook griffin_slayer
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:06 am
Location: on wii

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users