Moderator: Community Team
MR. Nate wrote: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.
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.
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?
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.
daddy1gringo wrote:I'm not sure who Jack Bauer is, but my guess is he's some fictional character who performs impossible feats, like James Bond or Indiana Jones. The point is, the scenario is not likely.
Stopper wrote:It seems a bit difficult to take the idea - that the apostles would not have died for something they knew to be a lie - as some kind of proof of Jesus' divinity, if there's hardly any evidence that the apostles were indeed violenty killed, and for their faith, in the first place.
luns101 wrote:The fact that they would be willing to die for Christ means they believed that Jesus had actually died and risen again - the resurrection. If Jesus actually resurrected from the dead then that would be proof of his divinity.
unriggable wrote:Or it could just be the desert hallucinations kicking in. I seriously doubt that they all saw it - thats whats written. It could have just been one of them who thought he saw Jesus, and was later added to other parts of the bible for effect.
unriggable wrote:If the apostles told me they saw Jesus rise personally, I might believe them.
unriggable wrote:But keep in mind that its word of mouth for hundreds of years, and then writing (without a printing press mind you) for another thousand and a half. Its like when a friend tells you a story about one of their friends, you see a few exaggerations. Imagine this only thousands of times over.
unriggable wrote: But keep in mind that its word of mouth for hundreds of years, and then writing (without a printing press mind you) for another thousand and a half. Its like when a friend tells you a story about one of their friends, you see a few exaggerations. Imagine this only thousands of times over.
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?
unriggable wrote:Angelican, the placebo effect is where you think you will be saved when in fact it doesn't help much.
d.gishman wrote:I dont think the placebo effect is strong enough to make the blind see or the lame walk, such as what the gospels claim jesus did
Bertros Bertros wrote:Hey Anglican. One of the reasons my presecence in religious discussions has been waning is that I just don't have the time to properly compose a post which accurately conveys my opinion without sounding trite or condescending, which unfortunately my previous posts in this thread some ways did, dammit.
Bertros Bertros wrote:I know somebody else earlier claimed that all the people who haven't been cured by God does not invalidate the ones who have. Well I disagree. To believe in a benovelent interventionary personal God I would require a level of consistency to support it. Why does faith heal one person and not the other, if the actual healing is coming from God. I could accept if all pious persons were healed and all those doubters such as myself weren't but this isn't the case either. Now I know you could say its down to God to decide who is healed and who are we to question it but that is the standard cop out which is applied to anything unexplainable i.e. There is no answer to this therefore we put it down to God being mysterious and who are we to judge.
Bertros Bertros wrote:We can bandy statistics around about religious faith and instances of recovery from illness etc but these don't provide full coverage of all contributory factors such as the socio-economic trends and so are incomplete. The thing is ultimately we agree that faith, albeit in God in otherwise, is a powerful tool in recovery and even prevention of illness, one which certainly shouldn't be ignored. However I believe should also be demystified.
Bertros Bertros wrote:And the spiritual crutch remark, which was indeed trite, was also misplaced so I will try and expand. I'm not suggesting I know what anyone puts their faith in, but its clear that having faith in something is beneficial. Faith in yourself combined with an understanding and acceptance of your own integrity and morality is essential and it sometimes seems that organised religion can act as a barrier to that self discovery by prescribing what constitutes these things and suggesting that they do not come from within. In some respects it excuses people from thinking too much.
AlgyTaylor wrote:As you quite rightly say (sort of), people using, say, Christianity as justification for their wrong actions is no reason to say that Christianity itself is bad. I think the teachings of the bible are quite clear and people living their life by the example set by Jesus are certainly to be commended.
luns101 wrote:Stopper wrote:It seems a bit difficult to take the idea - that the apostles would not have died for something they knew to be a lie - as some kind of proof of Jesus' divinity, if there's hardly any evidence that the apostles were indeed violenty killed, and for their faith, in the first place.
I guess you would need to ask yourself, Stopper, if you personally would be willing to die for something that you indeed knew was a lie.
The fact that they would be willing to die for Christ means they believed that Jesus had actually died and risen again - the resurrection. If Jesus actually resurrected from the dead then that would be proof of his divinity.
Typherin wrote:The Blindlingly Open Statement
"Jesus was gay"
vtmarik wrote:I can write down in a book that I personally saw aliens from Planet 9 create life before my very eyes. Just because it survives for 2000+ years and people believe it doesn't mean that it actually happened.
Lots of people have written about dragons in mythology and legend dating back to antiquity, but has any proof ever arisen about them?
Just because something has endured for a long time and that it's believed by millions doesn't mean squat in terms of evidence or accuracy. Thousands believe that Kennedy's assassination was a cleverly built conspiracy, do we have to wait 2000 years before people take those claims seriously?
Typherin wrote: I'm trolling because I believe all history is revisionist, and have a postmodern theory of knowledge.
Because 4 people wrote quasi-biographies? And no evidence against his existence, or death, exists? Essentially, the only people that deny Jesus existed are those who refuse to actually look at the evidence. (Read, "freethinkers")Honibaz wrote:How does one know that Jesus did exist? Not trying to offend anyone.
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?
Honibaz wrote:How does one know that Jesus did exist? Not trying to offend anyone.
Honibaz
luns101 wrote:Stopper wrote:It seems a bit difficult to take the idea - that the apostles would not have died for something they knew to be a lie - as some kind of proof of Jesus' divinity, if there's hardly any evidence that the apostles were indeed violenty killed, and for their faith, in the first place.
I guess you would need to ask yourself, Stopper, if you personally would be willing to die for something that you indeed knew was a lie.
The fact that they would be willing to die for Christ means they believed that Jesus had actually died and risen again - the resurrection. If Jesus actually resurrected from the dead then that would be proof of his divinity.
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?
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.
MR. Nate wrote:But 2 of the four gospels WERE by eyewitnesses, and we know (from manuscripts & fragments from the 1st century) that we've got what they originally wrote.
CrazyAnglican wrote:I still have to disagree with you on this. The placebo effect is explicitly applied to treatments that can't help.
MR. Nate wrote:you simply have to shed your preconceptions that it couldn't happen.
Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl, jusplay4fun