Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Hi Keith,
I don't disagree with anything you said in principle in your post. Yet we are talking about people coming back from the dead currently verses people who have claimed to come back from the dead in history. Scientists, I imagine are correct in relation to the current generation - and this is in total accord with the NT. Nor am I suggesting or implying that it is something we need to expect to see today. I don't and I have no expectations about this. Nevertheless, this is quite different to the claim that Jesus rose from the dead 2000 years ago. Jesus is also an unusual case which is very well known. The science I am talking about is not about physically getting Jesus into a laboratory and getting his dna into test-tube. Not only is that crazy talk but it is quite at odds with what I am discussing.
History has produced lots of very unusual events which can never properly be investigated in a test tube. Yet, scientific investigators examine the data they are able to collect and work towards conclusions. Christianity is a significant religion in the world. Is it true or false is hardly relevant for this investigation. Nevertheless, this significant religion commenced somehow and for particular reasons. I say the same thing for the JWs and for Islam. Investigating these things which commenced somehow - should investigate the claims and not just begin with a prejudice no matter how difficult the claim seems to be. To be perfectly honest, I find the theory of the big bang completely laughable. It does not sound plausible or even possible and really sounds more like atheist scientists grasping at straws - any straw to continue their denial of a divine creator. Yet, even with that I totally would think that I would not dismiss it in prejudice because I am more inclined towards truth than simply accepting things. I am of the view that Jesus was very unusual and his views ought not be dismissed. I certainly concur that people don't come back from the dead as a normal course of events. Yet, Jesus was not ordinary in any sense of the word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I am being VERY logical here. And I am using scientific methodologyYou are doing no such thing and in fact doing the very opposite of what is logical and what is scientific. There is zero scientific evidence of people coming back from the dead and there is 100% evidence of people dying and staying dead.
Well I disagree with you. As any scientist with integrity would do. Scientists don't start with prejudice. They start with a desire to seek truth even if it disagrees with everything they know. It seems to me that you lack fundamental skills in logic and reasoning and in scientific methodology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
. Given that people don't come back from the dead as a matter of normal course, when a person DOES come back,Lol, that is hilarious. You make a critical error here, no one has come back from the dead, hence your point is irrelevant. This is something totally difference from swans with difference colors, because swans actually exist. People coming back from the dead do not exist.If you can't get this simple fact through your head, then you will never offer any rational or sane explanation and will always believe people can come back from the dead. Perhaps, you've been watching too much tv.
I have made no error here. It is you who is unable to criticise properly. You keep going back to the black swan error. The fact is some people do claim that at least one person has come back from the dead. To simply close your mind to this claim is prejudice, it is not scientific. You state dead people do not come back from the dead, and yet some people make a different claim. Now one possibility is that they are insane or making it up or delusional. Another possibility is that they correct. A scientist doe is not start with "it is impossible, next please". A scientist may well start - and I would be surprised if they did not, with plenty of skepticism. After all, dead people don't normally come back from the dead. So if a dead person did come back from the dead, it would certainly be something investigating. But you, no - you shut your eyes and simply repeat your mantra "all swans are white, all swans are white, all swans are white". Hence the question is not about continuing your prejudice but about examining the evidence and seeing where it leads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
he was saying "go and check it out. Go and talk to these living people who saw JesusYes, don't bother actually finding Jesus, just go out and talk with those who allegedly saw him. Yeah, that makes sense.
It makes total sense if you take the view that Jesus had ascended to heaven at this point. Duh! Yet others who were questioning his resurrection would also be able to talk to people who had seen him and cross examine them. Jesus at this time was not still on earth. Yes, that is convenient - but true according to the bible.
This is significant and skeptics need to be able to address it properly in the context and in relation to the missing body. Remember the Jews and the Romans could have dismissed it all at the time by producing a body - they did not.Hence, the Apostles stole the body and either buried it or destroyed it. Simple logic, dude.
Perhaps in your world this is simple logic but quite improbable or likely? the disciples would not be able to steal his body because the Romans would kill them. You need to address this properly. you don't. the roman governor had put his seal on the tomb. This is a big deal. It is stupid to say "the apostles stole the body" without any regard to the context. simple? Ok. I agree you are simple.
And what would be the point of such a conspiracy?To start a cult. Simple logic, dude.
and what would the point of this cult be smartie? no power, no money, no sex, and a quick death. now that makes sense.
If the disciples were smart enough to attempt a conspiracySmart people wouldn't steal the body and make up a story that it came back to life on it's own. That's what dummies would do.
no that is what you my simple friend would do. The body was not stolen. you have nothing to go on this except there "are no black swans". That is the extent of your argument. pretty lame, isn't?
you would not use a female as a witness unless it was the truth. If it was a lie or a conspiracy, you would find someone to make it credible.That's merely a ridiculous assertion that has no basis in fact.
Why? Read your greek literature - and read your Hebrew literature. It has plenty of basis - females had no recognition until millenia later - and your bigoted notion otherwise is something that you assert not me. Hence it is on you to prove otherwise.
What does it mean when a man comes back from the dead? Why don't you try and answer that question?People don't come back from the dead, that IS the answer, dude.
Oh yes, that is right. no black swans. Or perhaps in the form of Galileo - the earth is the centre of the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
clearly are doing without any kind of thinking.
These are possible explanations. But are they plausible?Of course, that's plausible, its one of the only sane explanations. Coming back from the dead is not a sane explanation.
the explanation of the disciples stealing the body is implausible. the Roman soldiers were guarding the gravesite. They were at pain of death if they let anyone steal the body. romans were trained to kill. Nor is the notion that he did not die in the first place. quite implausible. the evidence all points VERY strongly to him being killed on the cross. As I have said before Romans were very good at their job of killing people. They would have known if he was faking it which is why they pierced him in the side - where blood and water came out signalling he was well and truly dead. the wrong grave site - seriously? it was a rich man's tomb - noted and not many around. The soldiers knew exactly where he was. It is totally implausible for the alternatives. conspiracy between the disciples, the romans and the jews? Again is this a serious angle? The roman soldiers had their lives at stake. the jewish persons did not want a walking saviour. So how about you tell us about some so called plausible - and I mean plausible as opposed to what you think is possible? Perhaps the grave had a secret door? Again, seriously.
Yet no body was found and sane people did see him walking around.The body wasn't found because that was the intent, hide the body and create a story of coming back from the dead.People claimed to see him walking around, testimonials are useless without evidence. Anyone who claims they saw him were either mistaken, delusional or lying.
Your assumptions are all based upon "there are no black swans". That is so unscientific it is embarrassing for you. The body should have been in the tomb. Roman soldiers were guarding it. A royal seal was placed on the grave - death to any who opened it without authority. the jews and the romans had every motive to make sure the body was found once it went missing. what you seem to miss is that there were no Jewish legends of messiahs rising from the dead. You need to answer this because it is pretty significant. Uneducated jews starting a conspiracy about a dead messiah rising - it makes no sense - and has no plausibility. Psychologists have discussed whether it was delusional - the conclusions are - NO WAY - because there were too many people who were confident they saw the risen Jesus. They typically say it is more plausible that a dead person could come back from the dead than so many people had this same delusion.
This testimony of these people was instrumental in the exponential growth of the churchExactly, thank you from making my point about motivation to lie about the body coming back from the dead. It looks like you answered your own question.
Nice diversion - but hardly worthy of much comment. people don't die for a lie. They may well die for something they believed to be true - but for a lie. Hence - if they knew it was a conspiracy - they would not put themselves to death.
you don't take into consideration the eye-witness testimony of people prepared to die for their testimony.Based on that 'logic', I should take Islam seriously because Muslims flew airliners into buildings.That's why testimonials are useless without evidence.
and it why I put my original comments in the way I did because I am not talking about someone's belief - I am talking about people who would have known it was a lie or not. Quite different as you are quite aware. muslims might believe something they have been told. so too Christians for that matter. But these people - we are talking about are the very people who are either part of the conspiracy or part of something else quite magnificent. That is significant.
Nor does it take into account the growth of the church.Yet, you just admitted that above in bold. You sank your own argument.
how pray tell?
If you don't believe in God, you are hardly going to believe in miracles.You're right, I don't believe in magic, most sane people don't.
I refuse to take God out of the picture. these things could not have happened without God. It is your premise which has problems, not mine. A black swan is impossible. Yet when it happens, the true and consistent scientist does not say impossible - but ok what is different in this scenario. This is what you avoid because you do not believe in black swans.
Yet, for what purpose would the resurrection of Jesus be necessary without the existence of God?The purpose of starting a cult, of course.LOL - now that is a convenient - "shut my eyes" response.Well perhaps if you offered one that actually was able to address all of this in totality it might help. So far you have simply avoided it.The only person avoiding is you, avoiding facts, evidence and reality. You don't want to hear any alternative explanations as they all would dissolve your religion in a heartbeat.sorry - gold top. You are avoiding facts and not only that - you are avoiding my challenge. At least for the sake of my argument, humour me, if you are able, a man comes back from the dead, what does that mean? Does it mean anything? If so, why? and if not how come? when the impossible occurs - the scientific mind does not go blank - he rises to the occasion, what will you do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
No. Not at all. If people are coming back from the dead, then one must ask the question, why? It is stupid just to say - no it cant happen - and then shut your mind to it. Science is about answering questions - not shutting the topic down. You are shutting the topic down - you are not a scientist.But, people aren't coming back from the dead. One does not have to be a scientist to understand that simple fact. I am not shutting anything down, I am simply talking about reality, you aren't.
Yes, Goldtop that was my point. I am pleased you understand it. Now and I will take this real slow for you. Given that people don't come back from the dead as a matter of normal course, when a person DOES come back, then it would be quite normal for a scientist to ask the question " ok, what is going on here". Just think back a few years. Once upon a time, people believed swans were white. No swan could be any other colour - proved and reproved. Then one day a scientist was walking down the Swan River and lo and behold the IMPOSSIBLE happened. She saw what looked liked a black swan. confronted with something that was impossible - the scientist immediately declared - "it is not a swan". It cant happen. Therefore it did not happen. I fully accept that dead people don't rise from the dead. So when it does happen, I don't do what the scientist with the black swan did and what you apparently do - I ask the question "what is going on here"? Is something going on - and I look at the so called evidence and I ask questions. This I am quite afraid is something that clearly you are not up to. You just block it up. and then you deny you are blocking it up.
I am surprised by your total lack of understanding of the logic here. You normally come across as someone with a brain. Anyone can claim a missing body might mean they have been resurrected. Yet, this is not the argument here. Eyewitnesses and an astonishing impact are significant. People who dismiss either of these things as a totality are prejudiced - not scientists. Scientists look at the entire context - not just a claim that a body has been raised.You should probably steer clear of bringing up logic and science as your posts demonstrate you have no concept of them let alone how they work.Scientists aren't interested in testimonials as they know they are merely assertions, nor are they interested in context as that is irrelevant, scientists look at the evidence and the facts, which clearly point directly to the fact people don't come back from the dead.People with brains who use them understand this.
I am not going to let you just make such absurd statements without a response. I am being VERY logical here. And I am using scientific methodology despite your claim to have it mutually exclusive to yourself. I am simply asking a very valid question - what in the world is an alleged black bird doing pretending to be a swan? How can this be? What makes this situation so absurd? I am not going to start with the presumption of impossibility - although I not going to rule that out either. but there are questions which need to be answered - and not simply "ruled out" which you
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Prove that your god is not fictional and then prove it has ever said anything.“Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. ”
What is proof? Prove you are alive and not a robot? Do you want proof on the balance of probabilities? Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Proof on a scientific level? Proof on the pub level? What sort of proof is valid in your books? Is proof different from evidence?
We all know God cannot be proved by anything other than a divine measuring tool. Do you have one of those? We all know that God cannot be disproved because it is impossible to prove a negative.
I believe that the God who has revealed himself through the Scriptures of the OT and the NT is God. The Bible in no way attempts to prove God exists. It simply states it as it is. It goes without saying. I have no desire nor intention of going further. After all, what is God to you?
As for your quote - I agree that it is quite helpful. And I think in the main, it is true. I however did not make up my God. Nor would I have chosen the God of the bible because his ways are clearly at odds with our modern world and our values. Not that this makes our values better or worse than those of God in the Bible. After all, unlike you I am not a bigot. Nor so arrogant as to suggest that this modern generation is superior in ethics or morality than any previous generation. After all, it was this generation which elected Trump as president.
I cannot save myself from myself. In this way the God of the bible is much more superior than me. His ways are clearly much more perfect than mine - and his standards much higher than mine. After all, I might agree that murder is bad - but God says the standard of murder extends to calling your brother a fool. I think adultery in the flesh is bad. But God's standard is far higher - the mere thought of lusting after someone is adultery.
Does the God of the bible have the standards of a spoilt child? Well I suppose that depends on what a spoilt child is like? I don't see the God of the bible in any instance resembling a spoilt child. The bible presents God as perfect in goodness and holiness. Hence if he states that he will destroy someone for disobeying him or not loving him, this is not being out of a resentful situation or a boy not getting to bat. If it the right thing to love God and obey him, then for anyone not to do so is clearly the one with the problem not God. God is not dependant upon humanity for anything.
From the beginning, God has lovingly created everything according to his will and placed humanity on this planet. He has given humanity significant power and significant freedom and laid down only one rule. Humanity chose to ignore the good and follow his own heart. It was humanity who was given everything for nothing - and still was not satisfied with that. He wanted more even if it meant the end of his relationship God. Despite this - God still provided ways to bring his people back to him, despite humanities hatred towards God in a multitude of different ways, many of which remain today. Eventually he himself came - and died so that humanity might enter this relationship with God again. This is not the work of a spoilt child - it is the work of a God who is slow to anger - quick to forgive - and one who is mighty to save - but merciful and full of grace as well. Humanity has always - resented God for no other reason than the fact that God is God and he makes the rules and carries out the blessings and punishments attached to it. spoilt child hardly. Loving mother or father - yes.
Created:
-->
@MagicAintReal
If the devil made the world then why did God claim to make the world?I never said the devil made the world, I said how do you know when god claimed to make the world that it wasn't the devil deceiving you?
I told you how I know. The Bible states that God made the world. The bible does not state that Satan was pretending to be God or trying to deceive us about this. the bible in no place gives us any indication that he could make the world or that he claimed to do the same.
God is not a liar. Yet nowhere do we read in the bible that Satan claimed to have made the world. God does make the claimOk, how do you know that this god is not actually the devil deceiving you...of course the devil's not gonna put that secret in the bible, right?
What a strange question? The bible tells us that no one can call Jesus God without the Spirit of God enabling him to do so. Satan does not give glory to God. Jesus gave glory to God. His followers give glory to God. What possible reason could God be pretending that he is Satan? In the story of Job, God and Satan are clearly two different identities with different agendas. God tells us in the bible he does not deceive us - rather it is Satan who is the father of deceivers and liars. The devil did not write the bible - why would God allow him to put anything in it?
You seem to be discussing or talking about a god and a devil that is something else than that represented in the bible.Nope, they're the ones I'm talking about, and you've yet to tell me the difference between the two.You said god claimed to make the world and the devil didn't and that's how you know the difference...does that make sense to you?
Well if that is the case, then stick with what the bible tells us and don't go speculating about things which are obviously nonsense. God is the God who made everything that could be made. Satan is a fallen angel. God is not everything though. He is not satan. He is not humanity. Satan is finite - God is infinite. God is omniscient. Satan is not. God is all powerful. Satan is not. God will judge Satan. Satan will not judge God. Satan has NO power over God. These are all clarified in the scriptures. The fact that God made the world and Satan did not is one clue, it is not the only one.
I am talking about how God and the devil are described in the Bible.And given how they are described, how do you tell the difference?
By their characters. God is holy. Satan is sinful. God gives glory to God. Satan does not give glory to God.
Did God have the foreknowledge that Satan would be evil? I say the bible says yes.God's a dick for creating evil and refusing to rid the world of evil even though it's all his fucking fault.
You are only betraying a very biased and subjective point of view about the state of the world. The bible says that God has provided the solution to the world's evil. It is not a band aid solution. He does not fly in like superman. He sent Jesus - in other words he came himself - to resolve the matter of the heart by paying the price for the sin that sinful human did. He could only do this because he was not a sinner like the rest of humanity. Satan had brought death to this world by seducing Eve in the garden of Eden. Jesus as the representative head of his people could similarly impart his righteousness to his people. You should read and learn up on covenants.
Why did he not stop it? I don't know the answer to that question - nor do I actually need to have an answer. what I do know is that God made all things including Satan.How do you know satan didn't make god?
Because God was not made. He is eternal. Satan however was and remains finite. It is not plausible that a finite being created by God also made the same infinite God who made all things. But believe all you like.
The bible tells me that God and the Satan are two quite different entities.Sounds like something the devil posing as god would want you to think.
Well you had better explain yourself. Why would God be perfectly holy and perfect and who cannot lie on one hand also in total contradiction to everything that he is - also be Satan - to the point that he is lying to us all. If that were the case, then Satan exists and God is a fabrication of our minds. and of this is the case, then all that is good in this universe - from love, kindness, mercy, forgiveness, and grace are all fabrications as well.
I had asked why is god merciful to satan...I don't know the answer to your question.Yep, most people don't.
Yes, I don't know. I am not sure that God is being merciful to Satan. As I said above in speculation, it really seems to me that God is being merciful to humanity - and that due to this mercy by indirect means - an externality if you like, that provides an illusion to some people that God is being merciful to Satan. And if we think about it, what is the mercy shown? He is drawing out Satan's long and torturous sentence over generations. Satan's reputation continues to be tarnished and destroyed and his followers fewer and fewer. Is this mercy or something else? I don't have an answer to the question - because the question really has not been sufficiently asked.
How do you know that god even has the ability to destroy the devil whom he knew the future of before creating?Because the God of the bible says he does. He will be thrown in to a pit of fire.Sounds like something the devil would say.
Why?
Created:
-->
@MagicAintReal
1. God made the world. The devil did not.Ok, but how do you know that the devil wasn't just masterfully disguised as god claiming to have made the world?How would you tell when the devil does something disguised as god and when god does something?
I think that is obvious. If the devil made the world then why did God claim to make the world? God is not a liar. Yet nowhere do we read in the bible that Satan claimed to have made the world. God does make the claim. If the devil did make the world, then he is something other than the "devil" I am talking about when I answered your question above. I am talking about the God and the devil who are discussed in the Bible. You seem to be discussing or talking about a god and a devil that is something else than that represented in the bible.
2. God is divine. Satan is an angel who has fallen because he wanted to be God. God is omniscient and all knowing. Satan is neither. Neither is Satan all powerful.How do you know that what you're calling divine isn't the devil disguised as god, and what tells you that this entity is divine?Before god created satan, did god have the foreknowledge that this creation would spawn the devil?If yes, then why didn't he stop it?
I am talking about how God and the devil are described in the Bible. I don't particularly care how others describe either from outside of that revelation. Did God have the foreknowledge that Satan would be evil? I say the bible says yes. In fact God planned and foreordained this to be the case. Why did he not stop it? I don't know the answer to that question - nor do I actually need to have an answer. what I do know is that God made all things including Satan. I also know that God planned all things - and yet did so without sin. Could he stop Satan? Of course - and I would also argue that God has stopped Satan mostly. Satan does not have the power he used to have - his power has been seriously diluted.
3. What an interesting question? God does have the ability to destroy Satan, whatever gives you the idea that he does not?Well, he created satan knowing full well what would happen, therefore god allowed for the devil's existence or couldn't stop it from happening, and the devil apparently still exists today, yet goddy god is either choosing not to stop him, can't stop him, or, as I keep alluding to, the devil and god are one and the same, because there's no way to tell the difference between the two characters.
I don't know what you have been alluding too. I don't have time to read all of your posts. The bible tells me that God and the Satan are two quite different entities. You might have a different perspective - but it does not arise solely from the Bible. Hence, irrelevant to me. As above, I indicated, the bible says God made all things including Satan. Indeed I say he planned his existence. Satan has no power except what God has given him. We are not talking about two powers like black and white or dark and light like your Stars Wars films, Satan is smaller than an ant next to God. There is no match - it would be a complete mismatch. God even reduced the amount of power that Satan had by Jesus' death and resurrection where death was defeated. Satan can manipulate and taunt - and influence - but that is about it. Humanity all by itself is fallen enough to do enough evil for all of us. We don't need to blame everything evil that happens on the devil. We don't need to see demons under ever leaf. Our hearts are sinful and desperately wicked.
God could also destroy all of humanity quite justly. Yet, he is also merciful and patient. Satan knows his end.Why is he so merciful to satan?Is it because he created satan and evil and wants those both to remain?
I think the Bible says that evil and Satan both remain until the time of judgment. I take the view that given this time before judgment is a small time compared to eternity that even in our minds in the future that it will seem like a blur. Nevertheless, that is me speculating. I don't know the answer to your question. I do know that God in the bible is slow to wrath and quick to forgive. I don't think Satan will be forgiven and the apparent mercy shown to him is probably a reflection of God's mercy to humanity. An indirect perception that flows from God's mercy to humanity.
Whenever God eventually destroys Satan will be the perfect time.How do you know that god even has the ability to destroy the devil whom he knew the future of before creating?
Because the God of the bible says he does. He will be thrown in to a pit of fire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
History has clearly demonstrated that almost all of the apostles and many martyrs - such as Stephen went to the deaths because they were convinced Jesus died and rose again from the dead. If they were all part of the conspiracy this just seems too implausible to believe. They never had any real motivation to do this.
What motivation is there in this? At the time the church did not have money - or power or respect in the community. The fact is - the church grew exponentially ...There is your motivation, you just explained it, money, power and the growing of the church. That's huge motivation to concoct such a far-fetched story.
You are clearly grasping at straws. The early church were hunted, had no money and were killed for their abhorrent beliefs. there was no money or power in the early church. It was a cult at best -
They don't believe Jesus rose from the dead - but they acknowledge something significant happened - which they have not been able to explain - which clearly puts your suggestion that things are easily explained as implausible.Whether the story can be explained or not, there are many alternative explanations which are far more credible than a person rising from the dead. Sane people understand this.
This is my point. No one has produced a credible alternative explanation. Sane people look at the facts before them and try and explain them. they don't always comes to the correct conclusion. What does it mean when a man comes back from the dead? Why don't you try and answer that question?
Yes, people coming back from the dead is crazy. why? Because from our point of view it is impossible. This is why the story is amazing - and why it has plausibility.No, it's no plausible at all, it's completely crazy as you admit.
I only admit that it is highly unusual - and I suppose impossible from a human point of view. Yet, these three points together demonstrate something very significant happened and you don't have an alternative position for me even to consider.
The facts - from an objective point of view - clearly show Jesus rose from the dead.No, the facts don't show Jesus rose from the dead, not even remotely. The facts show a number of alternative explanations that don't require one to lie to themselves about something that you admit is crazy. This would show you (and many Christians) have no interest whatsoever to understand the truth.
Well yes they do. the facts shows a missing body. the facts show that some people said they saw this body raised and walking around. This implies that the dead body is no longer dead but is in fact raised from the dead. This testimony of these people was instrumental in the exponential growth of the church. the church did grow exponentially. the alternative explanations you rely upon are quite shallow because you don't take into consideration the eye-witness testimony of people prepared to die for their testimony. Nor does it take into account the growth of the church. Your alternative explanations need to account for both of these things as well - or they are simply shallow and useless explanations.
The stumbling block most people have is - they don't believe in God. Hence, take God out of the picture and it must be a lie or a myth.Wrong again, the fact is that you want to believe the story and it doesn't matter in the least that you admit it's crazy. So, you have no choice in the matter but to lie to yourself and accept that a person rose from the dead. You now admit further that it requires the belief in God in order to accept the story, so you have to lie to yourself and then lie to yourself again in order to support the other lie.
It is not wrong. If you don't believe in God, you are hardly going to believe in miracles. Or indeed anything that falls outside of your own experience. Again, that is not science - that is simply prejudice and foolishness. Of course I believe in God - I don't hide from that - I am quite assured in my belief of God. Yet, for what purpose would the resurrection of Jesus be necessary without the existence of God? You are so caught up in your own thinking you are getting lost in the trees.
There can be no other explanationThere are plenty of explanations, but you don't want to hear them because you know any alternative explanation to someone rising from the dead (which you admit is crazy) would invalidate your religion.
Well perhaps if you offered one that actually was able to address all of this in totality it might help. So far you have simply avoided it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
--> @Tradesecret
I never said people coming back from the dead was irrelevant. These things have not despite your suggestion been easy to explain.This is one of the key problems of the story that clearly cannot be justified by anyone. One must lie to themselves if they believe people can come back from the dead.
No. Not at all. If people are coming back from the dead, then one must ask the question, why? It is stupid just to say - no it cant happen - and then shut your mind to it. Science is about answering questions - not shutting the topic down. You are shutting the topic down - you are not a scientist.
I said the totality is important - because one of these things by themselves is something people attack...Of course, it's attacked. Duh. It completely dissolves any credibility of Christianity, which no Christian would ever admit.
I am surprised by your total lack of understanding of the logic here. You normally come across as someone with a brain. Anyone can claim a missing body might mean they have been resurrected. Yet, this is not the argument here. Eyewitnesses and an astonishing impact are significant. People who dismiss either of these things as a totality are prejudiced - not scientists. Scientists look at the entire context - not just a claim that a body has been raised.
The fact is Jesus' tomb was empty. And his body was never found...In other words, the body was taken from the tomb. Or, it was never placed in the tomb. These two alternative explanations are far more credible and sane than believing a person rises from dead and walks out of the tomb.
Yes, oh most brilliant mind among us. These are possible explanations. But are they plausible? Yet no body was found and sane people did see him walking around. The Romans were meticulous about what they did with bodies - they were experts at killing them - and they did not just let them be taken by anyone. You need to explain not just the missing body, but why so many people saw him. Remember that Paul was writing to skeptics in Corinth. He was giving these skeptics names and people to go and talk to. Paul was not just saying, "believe me", he was saying "go and check it out. Go and talk to these living people who saw Jesus". Paul was writing a real letter to real people at the time. This is significant and skeptics need to be able to address it properly in the context and in relation to the missing body. Remember the Jews and the Romans could have dismissed it all at the time by producing a body - they did not.
Fact is the disciples were not educated persons so hardly likely to be able to conjure up a conspiracy...And, you can prove that alleged fact? There are verses in the Bible that explain what you just claimed?
The Disciples are well recognised by historians and by the Jews themselves as uneducated people - fishermen and others. And what would be the point of such a conspiracy? The Jews at the time were not looking for a messiah who would die and rise again.
Even the usage of females as the first witnesses is significant evidence that Jesus' resurrection is not a conspiracy...No, that's not evidence of anything of the sort.
Whatever. If the disciples were smart enough to attempt a conspiracy - females are the last people on the planet they would use. They had no credibility. No one worth their smarts would listen to a female making such a claim. They would be laughed out of court. This is why their usage makes them credible - you would not use a female as a witness unless it was the truth. If it was a lie or a conspiracy, you would find someone to make it credible.
Fact is over 500 people saw Jesus alive after his death.You'll need to prove that alleged fact, as well. What verses?
Corinthians - Keith was good enough to find the verses for me.
Many of these people were prepared to die for what they believed they saw..Again, you need to prove that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Yes.You're very fond of calling what is written in the bible a fact.
I notice other people are very fond of citing science textbooks as facts too.
Yet none of them have actually ever done any of the real science.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I take the view it refers to the kings and important people of the time.
It cannot refer to angels - as this would violate the creation ordinance of kind after kind. angels and humans cannot produce infants.
Hence, it must refer to something else.
The kings of the world - at the time - were giants among men. They existed before Noah and after Noah.
Created:
-->
@MagicAintReal
1. Can you explain how you know when things have been done by god and when things have been done by the devil who has masterfully disguised something to look like it was done by god?
2. How do you tell the difference between god and the devil in general?
3. Why is it that god had the ability to create the devil, but has not the ability destroy him?
1. Does it bring glory to God or does it attempt to make him look stupid? God made the world. The devil did not.
2. God is divine. Satan is an angel who has fallen because he wanted to be God. God is omniscient and all knowing. Satan is neither. Neither is Satan all powerful.
3. What an interesting question? God does have the ability to destroy Satan, whatever gives you the idea that he does not? God could also destroy all of humanity quite justly. Yet, he is also merciful and patient. Satan knows his end. Satan knows the bible very well - and knows that God does not tell lies. It really is a matter of time and perspective. From a human point of view, we expect that God should destroy Satan immediately according to our standards and measures of time. God is divine and his timing and perspective is a divine one. Whenever God eventually destroys Satan will be the perfect time.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I think being jesus being born to a virgin would rate at least a mention.if the nativity stories were the same they might have more credibility, they aren't compatible. Matt and Luke agree closely where they are expanding on Mark's orginal effort (probably) but they over the nativity where Mark is silent. One or both just made it up, and, of course it's both!I would point out that there are hundreds of websites offering reconciliations of Matt and Luke and I've read a lot of them!
But it has rated a mention. Otherwise why are we discussing it. Mark starts with the prophecies of John the Baptist not with the birth of Jesus.
I don't see why it needs to be repeated in each gospel if the point of the author had a different purpose to the others. The writers were trying to confirm the other authors or their stories - they were writing to their particular audiences in their circumstances. There are lots of incidents in each of the gospels where only one particular point is mentioned - this does not reduce its credibility. An argument from silence does not reduce or make something true or not true. The whole argument for atheism rests on an argument from silence. Does this mean it has no credibility?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Matthew 19:24 " Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
It is what he said - the meaning is "it is impossible" because it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
This is one place where critics of the resurrection fall down. They pick on one thing - selectively but don't address the totality.The one thing such as the fact that people don't come back from the dead? And, this one thing is irrelevant to you?The empty tomb. The eyewitnesses. The exponential growth of the church.Those can all easily be accounted for and have nothing to do with someone rising from the dead.The Resurrection story hinges entirely on people coming back from the dead, which is crazy if anyone actually believes that.
I never said people coming back from the dead was irrelevant. These things have not despite your suggestion been easy to explain. I said the totality is important - because one of these things by themselves is something people attack - but no one has ever successfully tackled the entire three. The facts are Jesus did die. Romans are very good at killing people. The fact is Jesus' tomb was empty. And his body was never found - something that both the Romans and the Jewish leaders had very good incentives to supply. Fact is the disciples were not educated persons so hardly likely to be able to conjure up a conspiracy which has been so persuasive. Even the usage of females as the first witnesses is significant evidence that Jesus' resurrection is not a conspiracy. Fact is over 500 people saw Jesus alive after his death. Many of these people were prepared to die for what they believed they saw. People might die for a belief - Muslims do it all the time - but how many would die for a lie that they knew about personally? What motivation is there in this? At the time the church did not have money - or power or respect in the community. The fact is - the church grew exponentially - this is demonstrated by non-Christian historians and authors who have studied it. They don't believe Jesus rose from the dead - but they acknowledge something significant happened - which they have not been able to explain - which clearly puts your suggestion that things are easily explained as implausible.
Yes, people coming back from the dead is crazy. why? Because from our point of view it is impossible. This is why the story is amazing - and why it has plausibility. The facts - from an objective point of view - clearly show Jesus rose from the dead. The stumbling block most people have is - they don't believe in God. Hence, take God out of the picture and it must be a lie or a myth. There can be no other explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I was raised in a non religious family. We didn't really talk about God or religion. Mostly at the dinner table we talked about academic and educational subjects as well as current events. Most of the shows we watched together on TV were documentaries and educational shows. This was probably due to the fact that my mom was a teacher.The idea that I have a hole inside me is something I don't understand because I have never felt like I had a hole inside me that I needed to fill with anything. That being said do you think I should fill the hole inside me with God even though I don't have a hole inside me?
My mum was a teacher too. We used to watch lots of educational shows and documentaries as well. We just were not shielded from religion like it seems you were. My mother wanted us to have a wide and broad education.
I don't know whether you have a hole in you or not. I don't think people have God sized holes inside them. Nor do I think that God is simply going to fill a hole. God wants more than a whole - he wants everything. I think the entire notion of a hole is misleading and unhelpful.
I never had a hole that needed filling. I did need God - but that is a different thing altogether.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Good question. I don't know who said it first - but Jesus said that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. In other words it would be IMPOSSIBLE.
Sometimes people refer to a 10th century monk story of a camel going through a pass - that is called the eye of a needle. In the story the camel has to get down on its knees in order to get through the pass. The implication is that repentance is what is needed to get to heaven. And despite the truth within that comment - it is actually not what Jesus is getting at. He is saying it is impossible to get to heaven by yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
the story of Acts shows that A and S died because they lied to the Holy Spirit. It is ridiculous in my opinion to suggest it had to do with an end of the world cult. Christians may have believed Jesus was going to return soon - as they do now - but this was not why they died. Read the story in the book of Acts. You don't need to make stuff up.
Now you are correct that it was not a Marxist or political communism - but it not anything to do with communism. Communism whatever its political ideology still has to do with the loss of individual rights. This was not the case in the NT. And it cannot be read into it either. It was not collectivism. the bible says that they sold what they had to share amongst the group so that whoever needed it got some. This is people loving each other in a time which very unique in history - and not everyone sold all of their property. After this many would go home - and away from Jerusalem. This is private citizens voluntarily helping each other because they loved each other and saw a need. This is all it is. It is not an end of the world cult. It is not a proto-type of communism. It is the church in action from the very beginning loving and serving one another. That is the most plausible and likely scenario. Others such as communism or end of the world cult are implausible. There is no evidence in the NT that people were killing themselves off as they waited for Jesus to return. They believed that when he returned that he would rule. Killing themselves would have no benefits. It does not make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Pleased you did not draw that conclusion. Yes I read what you wrote above. I don't agree with that position. And surprisingly I find it difficult to believe that you do as well. From previous discussions with you - you seem stuck on the literal word from the version of the bible you read - and wont look at anything from any other source even if it is genuine.
Still it is pleasing you don't the two as being mutually exclusive. I think Jesus was both of the royal line of David - and a carpenter. Joseph was not just an ordinary carpenter in any event - he was known as "the carpenter" which seems to indicate he was quite specialised and known for his work. Articles are useful tools of grammar.
Yet neither does it mean that his family were necessarily wealthy. Keithprosser is correct about the usage of certain birds rather than larger animals for the sacrifice. It is significant - even as you were correct about certain gifts being given to his family at the age of two by the men who came from the East. Jesus was born king - although I suspect this was talking about his status as divine king rather than of the lineage of David.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
the only way it was better to be poor than rich was in relation to wealth being an idol. Even the poor needed to trust in Christ to enter the kingdom of heaven. The poor did not have a secret key.
I reject the notion that the early church was any kind of communism or collectivism. With respect the error with that kind of thinking is a basic lack of understanding of the difference between state, church and the private sector. Just because some of the church sold some of their goods is in contrast to communism. firstly communism is state sanctioned - compelled mandatory tax (theft - redistribution) - there is no voluntarism about it. In Acts - the church - which is of a private nature not state nature - was done voluntarily as they had the ability to do. NB too that not all private wealth owners gave up all of their wealth - because they were meeting in private homes - owned by wealthy Christians. Again this is very much in stark contrast to any form of communism.
The context of the time in Jerusalem is quite telling. Firstly, there was an extraordinary event that occurred which was very different to other years. Pentecost which was a normal celebration was extended because of what was happening to the church. Hence - the ordinary amount of food brought in for the normal celebration ran out - quickly due to the fact that so many people stayed around. Secondly there was a famine in the land. Christians - out of the grace they had received were helping each other - and assisting them when they had run out. therefore supply and demand - created the need for Christians to voluntarily give their land and property away. But - it was voluntary and it was only those who were able to give - and it was only out of the abundance that they had. Ananias and Sapphira were put to death by God because they lied to God. They did not have to give away as much as they said they did. They were under no obligation to do so - but the fact that the lied - and tried to make out they were doing more than others - was part of the reason they were judged.
It is true that Luke tends to talk more about poor in a way that many of us do today. And he was certainly careful to ensure people did not get caught up with idols - but it would be incorrect to suggest that being poor gave any more success to the kingdom than wealth. Wealth and poverty both had issues. God does not discriminate on the basis of economic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Billy Graham popularised the notion that non-Christians had a God sized hole in their heart that needs filling. The idea was that non-believers were always looking for something - even though they did not know what it was - but that they felt empty without it. Graham suggested it was God that they were missing - so they should invite God into their heart to have this need satisfied.
Although I understand where he is coming from, I personally think it can be misleading. In the first place - our hearts don't just have a hole - they are broken and sinful. They need to be totally replaced, not just repaired. the bible says God will give a new heart - he calls this regeneration. Jesus called it being born again.
I also think it is not simply a matter of inviting Jesus into your heart. This implies that somehow we can do something - and that it is up to us to do the inviting. For me, this makes God rather pathetic. I think that when God moves - he moves and humans cant stop him. The example of Paul on the road to Damascus is a great example. Paul was intent on going to Damascus to put Christians into prison and possibly killed. Jesus confronted him on the road and essentially told him to stop resisting him. Paul was gobsmacked and immediately fell into line. Paul never invited Jesus into his heart - Jesus told him - and Paul cried out "yes Lord".
Regeneration is the activity of God. He changes our heart - and leads us to repentance over our sins - He declares us justified - and fills us with his Spirit. Jesus death on the cross is the legal justification for this declaration. His resurrection from the grave proves it. Pentecost - the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the church - evidenced his ascension to heaven. In other words, if Jesus did not ascend to heaven, the Pentecost could not have occurred - and the church would not have been born.
The historical record - shows the exponential growth of the church was phenomenal. From a little over 12 disciples in or around 33 Ad to over half of the Roman kingdom some 300 years later - we are talking millions and millions of people - is staggering. And this was before Constantine declared the Roman nation Christian. In many ways the emperor had no choice - but to declare Rome Christian because Christians were everywhere and growing. He needed to legalise it - so he could control it.
Yet, despite the debates over whether Constantine's conversion were good or bad for the church - one thing is sure - the church had grown to such an extent - in such a short time even prior to Constantine - that if it was not the work of a divine hand which grew it, then what other possible - and indeed plausible explanation could there be other than the fact that Jesus died and rose from the grave.
This is one place where critics of the resurrection fall down. They pick on one thing - selectively but don't address the totality. The empty tomb. The eyewitnesses. The exponential growth of the church.
So Paul, my view would be get your bible out and start reading through the gospel of Mark. It is the shortest of the gospels and gets right into the ministry of Jesus fairly quickly. Reading the entire book in one sitting would be good - read it out loud too. when it was written it was written to be read out loud because most people could not read. And if you have any other questions - ask away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Ethang wrote:The NT is saying do not make earthly wealth your hearts desire, not that wealth is bad
I think the NT does go further than saying 'do not make earthly wealth your hearts desire' and does imply 'wealth is bad'.Perhaps the most explicit passage is"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:23-26There are other verses that express similar ideas, and I don't know of anything that can be construed as otherwise.
Hi Keith,
I am not sure of the context of Ethang's quote above; but I am not convinced that your understanding of Jesus' point is correct - or at least needs to be qualified.
Jesus' entire message to his people was that it was impossible for anyone to get to heaven by themselves. Whether they are rich or poor or black or white or slave or free or male or female. The context was specifically talking about receiving eternal life. Many persons believed in that time that rich people were rich because God blessed them. Poverty was seen as a curse of God as was illness, or ailment. Jesus turned all of this thinking upside down. He takes wealth or poverty out of the equation. As he takes out gender, and slavery, and race. Jesus knew that no one was able to get themselves to heaven. And he said as much. The disciples were clearly shocked by Jesus' comments which indicated that it was impossible for a rich man to get into heaven. His point was - getting into heaven required trusting in him not yourselves, your own deeds, your own skills, your own wealth - but rather in Jesus.
This is the fundamental contrast between religion and Christianity. Do we get ourselves to heaven or does God get us there? What this passage really does not have that much to say about is wealth. Yes, it is a rich man. Yes, he valued his wealth over heaven. Yes, rich man cant buy their way to heaven. Jesus wanted them to know that just because some one was rich or wealthy, it was not going to guarantee them a place in heaven, in fact it probably was a clue that were not in the kingdom. It depends upon what they are trusting in - money or God. This is why he told the rich man to give his money away - and to stop trusting in his wealth and follow Jesus.
the NT was not opposed to wealth per se. Yet it clearly points out that wealth is something that can easily become an idol - and one which people can easily fall into the trap of trusting in rather than God. In our times, people do the same with their education, their jobs, science, even their poverty. some right wingers - consider their maleness or even the colour of their skin a guarantee of divine favour. Jesus pushes through all this and says - "sorry, that is not how it works" - you need to lay that all aside - and trust me. Hope this helps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So Stephen do you think that being a descendant of David and being the son of a carpenter must be mutually exclusive?
How do you draw such a conclusion? Scriptures please.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Over century’s speculation, guesswork and downright lies about biblical content have now become church dogma. Certain doctrines have been integrated into western society as if they are positive facts.Children,and dare I say it, some adults are rarely told or know that Matthew says Mary was a virgin but Mark does not; or that Luke mentions the manger in which Jesus is placed whereas none of the other gospels do not; or that not one gospel makes even the vaguest reference to the stable which has become such an integral part of popular tradition.Mark, as mentioned, makes not a single reference to a “virgin birth”. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke mention it in varying degrees and John thinks it is so insignificant and unimportant that he ignores it altogether.
Four different gospels written for four different purposes and to four different audiences. Hmmm, I wonder why each focuses on something different to the other? I wonder why that might be? Oh dear, obviously that makes no sense - so lets just reject it because we cant figure it out ourselves.
Selective Teaching of this kind is and had been the problem. This applies not only to the nativity in Bethlehem but also to any number of incidents in Jesus’ recorded life.
Wow! - this amazing and highly insightful statement from the king of "selective teaching".
Christian Children have been taught a story that has been smoothed over, a tale that extracts the most entertaining features from each gospel and merges them into a single embellished tale that was never written by anyone..
While I agree that much that is presented in the Christmas story has been embellished, this does not distract from the underlying meaning that goes to the core of it and which most people see when they take the time to read and understand it. Looking at side issues such as the stable and three wise men etc. cetera may well be the high point for some - as I am sure it is yours. For others it has been the core idea which has transformed their lives from what it was to what it is now.
Children and students alike are told to turn to such and such a chapter and read such and such a verse, they are directed to what “the bible says” and, by doing this whole pseudo gospel has been concocted. Indeed, while this sleight of hand is being performed right in front the eyes of the student he/she will never realise that this is a purposeful misdirection from the more awkward verses that are far more uncomfortable and complicated to explain than those of the fairy tail they have been led to believe since childhood.
Perhaps that is your experience - but it is not the experience of all - or perhaps even the majority. People generally trying to teach a subject are following a set plan and order. You yourself do it even on this site and do so frequently. The fact that others notice this and attract your ire is evidence of it.
This “miracle” is mentioned in only two of the four gospels and nowhere else in the New Testament And the student not knowing this because of the way he /she has been instructed to “read” the bible would never know, and therefore never have the chance to question why such a marvellous and "miraculous" event was not mentioned by these other men of god, Mark & John, it is after all, at the very heart of Christian tradition.
Why should it be mentioned in every gospel? I think if it was mentioned once, in one gospel it would be sufficient. As I indicated above each of the four gospel writers had different purposes and audiences for writing their gospels. For some, Jesus' birth and genealogy was important and for others it would not be. Authors tend to write to their audiences with a specific purpose - and writing everything just for the sake of it is time wasting and redundant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
the other thing which you did not seem to understand is that Jesus was actually filling out the law of the OT.
In the OT and during Jesus time, the Pharisees and the people of Israel thought that so far as they did not murder someone - then they had passed the requirements of the law - that somehow they were righteous before God. This is certainly how the Pharisees saw it.
Yet, Jesus pointed out that this is a very low standard - and that the standard itself was much higher - because calling your brother a fool was the same as murdering someone. Jesus was teaching the difference between the letter of the law and the heart of the law. The Pharisees were black letter lawyers - Jesus said it was the heart of the law - the substance of the law that was where God's standards were at.
His entire point in this part of the sermon on the mount was to demonstrate that everyone on the planet failed God's standards - and that no one could say - yep, I can check that - I can check that other one. I have done enough to prove I am righteous. Everyone was guilty of breaking the 6th commandment because everyone was angry with someone sometime.
the next lesson was in relation to adultery. It was not good enough to say - Yes, I have never slept with someone I am not married too - It was even to the point of not looking at some one with lust in your heart. the lesson after that had to do with faithfulness - and divorce - followed by a couple of other lessons all pointing out the same thing - No righteousness - no kingdom.
Since Jesus was the only person who has never sinned and indeed kept the law perfectly - he is the only one who has the righteousness to enter heaven. Thankfully, however, he promises to share his righteousness with any who will trust in him. Even you Stephen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As is often the case, you misquote a context and cause a problem where there is none.
Jesus in Matthew 5:22 does not say he who calls "anyone" a fool is in danger of hellfire. It says he who calls his "brother" a fool is in danger of hellfire.
Jesus called the Pharisees and others fools. He did not call his brother one.
Brother in this context has a specific meaning - not a sibling brother - but someone who is a believer.
Hence, calling an atheist a fool does not invoke the hellfire clause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
This is not your thread. I responded to Stron and Stron replied back. It is a topic which has naturally moved to discussing a topic - some might call that evolving according to those within it.
And it has provided some new thoughts. If Stron wants me to stop I will. But your comments can lie as they fall.
as for relevance - it has to do directly with God. and with death. so my comments are on line. Hawkings died. God is not dead. Hawking says God is dead - yet death proves evolution false. At least until someone can come up with some decent explanations. So far there has been a scratching of the surface. conjectures - yes and perhaps some food for me to think about. Even Goldtop came up with some good material. Keithprosser always provides useful information and Stron even here enabled me to consider his position. You on the other hand - came in and proceeded to get all snotty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It may be true that mechanisms and machines wear down. But the fact that they do is not an explanation of why they must. Surely a theory in principle is good or true. And must remain so irrespective of other issues.Death occurs because living things are essentially mechanisms and mechanisms eventually wear out and break down. Living things are mechines that make copies of themselves, which they do with high but not perfect accuracy. Those variants that are good self-copiers thrive, those that do not copy themselves well soon disappear. Note that 'thrive' applies to the variant form, not any individual. A variant that copied itself rapidly in short time and dies young is often more successful than a variant that may or may not copy itself before its inevitable demise.
Again I am not finding a satisfactory answer. Copies are copies - why cant copies be perfect copies and why do the originals need to die?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Evolution is about change, hence a living organism passes on it's genes and then dies. If organisms never died, there would be no change, no evolution of species. Evolution does not make living things die, it is a result of the organisms death once it passes on its genes.
That does not answer the question. just because evolution is changing and adapting to the things about it, does not mean that everything that comes before it has to die. Remember that the body has lots of parts - each part has a special thing to do which required it to adapt to get to that point - whether it being the ear or the eye or the leg. Surely you are not suggesting that every part of the body has to die in order for one extra part to evolve? I also think that if we take your answer seriously, there would no point to having any more than one species in existence. so the great variety of species that Darwin used to write his wonderful little book - on that delightful little island are pointless.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
It's not so much that there is an evolutionary advantage to dying, but that what happens to older members of a population is unimportant from an evolutionary standpoint.
That is not much of an answer. It sounds more like a convenient statement. Given that the human body seems to have a particularly resilient means to harm and has an amazing self healing mechanism, it seems more likely that humans are meant to live for a long time rather than die.
That is because most organisms die long before they reach old age. The have accidents, or get eaten, or contract some non-genetic disease. Because older organisms comprise a smaller and smaller fraction of the population, their survival has less and less effect on the survival of the species as a whole. Deleterious mutations that affect the old don't get filtered out by natural selection because there is no evolutionary advantage to doing so.
Yes, you are correct organisms die long before they reach old age, whatever that is supposed to be. You still have not answered why living things must die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
And the bible is far older than 2500 years in any event,The bible is approx. 1600yrs old, don't you know anything about biblical history?Yes you said you use your brain. Well so do I.No you don't, you use the brains of ignorant superstitious primitive savages.
Jesus lives approximately 2000 years ago. The NT is dated from within 30 years of his death.
The OT on the other hand was written thousands of years prior to Jesus. David lived well before Jesus. And Moses well before him.
Even the Dead Sea Scrolls are older than 1500 years. I am not the one who needs to do their homework.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I think there are more interesting questions in the first three chapters that provide more of a difficultyDO YOU! Then start a thread of your own, why wait for me?I am hopeful that Stephen might actually get to some of those parts.Don't wait for me to do that for you. What's stopping you starting your own threads on thesemore interesting questions in the first three chaptersThen let's hear them. Start your own thread on the "more interesting questions" that you say there are in the bible. AND STOP TRYING TO GOAD ME DOWN A PATH THAT YOU WANT ME TO TAKE.
Lol!
That's a no then. I am not surprised.
Of all of the things to comment on - that is the one you choose to respond to? I take your concession. You have lost the debate. Actually you did not debate on any occasion. You simply repeated yourself and your own assertions - occasionally commenting on verses out of context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
because we are alive, really simple.
Well that does not make sense. True only living things can die. But why do we need to die? What is the evolutionary point behind death? Natural selection cannot lead us there unless there is a controlling force or mind behind nature, which we told there is not.
So why do we die? What is the purpose behind this - when we are always being led to believe the "life will find a way". Death, I think proves evolution false. Death is the antithesis to life. Evolution is about life. So why die? Why not live forever?
It makes no sense.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I think there are more interesting questions in the first three chapters that provide more of a difficultyDO YOU! Then start a thread of your own, why wait for me?I am hopeful that Stephen might actually get to some of those parts.Don't wait for me to do that for you. What's stopping you starting your own threads on thesemore interesting questions in the first three chaptersThen let's hear them. Start your own thread on the "more interesting questions" that you say there are in the bible. AND STOP TRYING TO GOAD ME DOWN A PATH THAT YOU WANT ME TO TAKE.
Lol!
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I think there are more interesting questions in the first three chapters that provide more of a difficulty.
There probably are. But if you can't even manage to square away some of the “minor” problems with honesty instead of filibustering your way through a problem and blatantly denying certain verses do not exist , then you/we are not going to get far.
I am hopeful that Stephen might actually get to some of those parts.
There isn’t much chance of that while you keep implying parts of the bible don’t even exist. While you keep insisting one words means something completely different and insisting everything is down to one interpretation or another. And presenting your own opinions and theories as FACT!.
I have not once denied that any part of the bible does not exist. Nor do I insist that one word means more than it says. I do however take the view that the Hebrew or the Greek word underlying an English word is more authoritative and I don't accept that the translation of the word is more valuable than the original. As for my theories, I unlike you have a professional right to provide an opinion as I am a professional theologian with appropriate and recognised qualifications. I also stand behind and beneath other eminently qualified professionals in the discipline of theology. In any event, my opinions are not difficult to find. I am not necessarily speculating or conjecturing.
I have told you before.I do have supporting evidence for my opinions but I rarely have to produce them,because you spend so much time answering me with opinions, your own opinions. I simply challenge your opinions. I have made it quite clear that,Is all I do is highlight what I believe to be anomalous and puzzling with these scriptures, then give my opinion why I believe what I believe about them to be anomalous and puzzling, or simply ask a question about them and then leave the rest up to clowns like yourself and ethang5.
You don't produce evidence. You produce a verse and then comment on it. That is not evidence. You don't exegete the passage or the verse. You don't parse the verbs or provide even a semblance of the meaning from the underlying language. You do what fundamentalists do, you look at the verse (out of context mostly) and then provide a comment on it and then say it is evidence. Well it is not acceptable as evidence.
I have an opportunity to present the traditional view (the correct one in my opinion)
Just as I said, your opinion presented as fact.
You use the word opinion and fact like you are using them, not at all like they meant to be.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It is there in front of your own damn eyes and yet you deny it with lies.
Yes, it is there. Exactly as I have described. I have also suggested that it is quite common stylistic language for books prior to Gutenberg.
This is why your questions will remain unanswered because they are not the questions of the text.
At least you admit that you won't answer them.BUT they are questions about the CONFUSING biblical text, What are they if not about the biblical text?This is just another piss poor way of avoiding prickly questions that have you on the back foot. You resort to lies and blatant denial in the face of the facts. Someone of your caliber should be ashamed of yourself. But you won't be. Because your a pompous clown with his head stuck tight up his own dirt box.
I have obviously missed your point here. The only thing I stated was that you were distorting the text because you were reading things into the text that are not there. I have not avoided any prickly questions. I disagree with you and I have all of the experts agreeing with me. What have I denied? I have only denied your distortions of the text. I see how God created humanity in the first chapter. I do not deny this. I see how this first couple was created more specifically in the second chapter. I do not deny that either. I only deny your distortion that it is two couples when clearly it cannot be. Genesis 2:5 states that "there was no man to till the ground". How can it be a second couple when it says there was no man there at the time? You fail either recklessly or intentionally to take this on board and then say there are two couples.
Stop intimating that I am lying.
Well when you show some decency and stop telling me that I am lying then I may well apply your standards.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Well you might know - but the bible is pretty clear there was only one couple - Adam and Eve.
This is not true. There are clearly TWO creations of two males and two females written in the Genesis story you are trying to tell us there isn't'. That is a blatant LIE.
Creation of the first couple in Genesis describing how God created everything generally.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion etc etc.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Creation of the first couple as zoomed in, in chapter 2.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God Formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Then!This God decides that because the man shouldn’t be alone without a mate/helper so he goes to a third creation of a human, this time a female. But this creation is like no other.
See, I am not denying the verses, despite your opinion. I am simply explaining how the chapters follow on one from another. It is the same story but more specifically. Please don't be so naïve to think that every book written pre-Gutenberg always attend to a chronological manner. If you were to look at Revelation for instance it repeats the same picture seven times throughout the book, from a slightly different angle. It is not my fault if you are ignorant of how people wrote prior to the Gutenberg.
Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God Caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God Had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
THAT IS NOT, AS YOU INSIST, THE BIBLE MAKING IT "PRETTY CLEAR" THAT THERE WERE ONLY ONE COUPLE..
Well yes, it is quite clear. God created Adam and from Adam he made Eve. This is the same couple he described generally in chapter one.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Learn to use you quote icon.
Ok.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
There is no God -- that's the conclusion of the celebrated physicist Stephen Hawking, whose final book is published Tuesday.
The book, which was completed by his family after his death, presents answers to the questions that Hawking said he received most during his time on Earth.
Well how about this? Stephen Hawking is dead. And we are still debating the existence of God. I guess that means God = 1 and Hawking = dead.
For the record, why do we need to die?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Yes you said you use your brain. Well so do I. And so did other people in this generation and in other generations. so now that is settled, what makes you think that you of all the people in this entire world and indeed history of the world has some kind of unique measuring device that enables you as opposed to me or indeed any superstitious person in this world to know right from wrong and us not?
and this time give us an answer and not some ad hominin attack. Try answering the question with an argument in other words. Or perhaps that is asking to much?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
One can never be certain.
You might need to unpack that a little bit. What specifically are you talking about that we cannot be certain?
But if reasoning is not valid
Remember that I am not suggesting it is invalid. Only that it a presumed validity not a reasoned one.
if logic is not reliable
Again I not suggesting it is not reliable. Only that it is a presumed reliability - not a reasoned one.
if science is based on an illusion and
Some might argue this - but not me. but science is also a methodology not concrete.
every theory we possess is actually wrong
Theories are theories - some are right and some are wrong.
then we don't know anything at all
The point I am making is about reasoning. Even your train of thought here require an axiom of reason to be presumed to be coherent.
and I still reject your claims except in this scenario there is no way for you to demonstrate your claim.
You can do whatever you want. You might reject or accept; but what is important is that you must concede that your rejection is not based upon valid reasoning. It is therefore just your conjecture - intuition - or whatever you want to call it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How about the preposition itself of reasoning?
How does one conclude that reasoning is valid without first presuming that reasoning is valid? After all, it would be absurd to reason your way to reason if you have to wait until reason was valid in the first place. It is therefore an axiomatic presumption.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I have to admit I cannot recall anyone using this type of view before. I have myself asked lots of questions about the text - and often get myself into trouble from those of a more conservative position. I think there are more interesting questions in the first three chapters that provide more of a difficulty. I am hopeful that Stephen might actually get to some of those parts. So far he managed to avoid the difficult parts. Still one might be hopeful that he will and who knows, perhaps he might have an interesting perspective. Still, given his current track record, this will probably require some independent thinking of his own, and not just utilising the pet topics of his favourite authors. I am not sure he is capable of that yet as even now he simply refuses to engage with me on the questions I raise. He just repeats himself - asserts that he is correct and then repeats himself a bit more - usually with a couple of slurs on me and Christians in general ignoring his questions. I think I have answered all of his questions. Yet, I don't actually recall him engaging with my questions. Yes, once he answered one question about whether or not God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit. But with his very bland assent, he took it no further. After all, a command to do something or not to do something implies certain things. He chose to move onto a different topic rather than engage. Hence my conclusion, that he is simply using someone else's material without any independent thinking of his own.
I don't particularly care if he agrees with me or not. I have an opportunity to present the traditional view (the correct one in my opinion) and he can throw whatever he likes. So far, he has not put anything remarkable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Well that just proves how smart you are? Why do think that you of all the people in this entire world and indeed history of the world has some kind of unique measuring device that enables you as opposed to me or indeed any superstitious person in this world to know right from wrong and us not?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
LIAR!!!!!
So. the FIRST creation according to "THE BIBLE"of male and female humans goes like this:>>
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion etc etc.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
It then continues with a chapter further on Chpt 2 informing us that god needed labourers “to till the land” . So a God sets about a second creation of man but giving the reader more details of how he went about creating this second human male.
I have answered your question - the fact that you refuse to understand is not my problem. the first chapter is about God. It provides a general picture of how God created things. And then from chapter 2:4 we zoom into see how God made the humans. I care less how you wish to distort what all the commentators say - both Jewish, Christian and others. You don't accept my view - well so what? That does not make me a liar. I am not lying.
The SECOND couple were, according to THE BIBLE , created separate and from different materials. Read for yourself and deny away until your heart's content.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord god Formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. It goes on to say heathen put this man into the garden,
Then!
This God decides that because the man shouldn’t be alone without a mate/helper so he goes to a third creation of a human, this time a female. But this creation is like no other.
Genesis 2:21 Andthe Lord God Caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 Andthe rib, which the Lord God Had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
and I heartily agree with the events as they have unfolded. God made man first and then made woman. He did this on day 6. Male and female. There are not two couples - just one set. You can inject another couple in - but it is just that - you injecting into the text what is not there.
So to deny these separate accounts of creation and say that the bible "makes it pretty" clear there is "only one couple" is you simply lying again. It is there for all to read, and there is no getting away from it.
This is why your questions will remain unanswered because they are not the questions of the text.
So are you now saying that I have not produced text from the bible are you saying those verses I have posted are fake and are not even in the Bible?
I did not say you produced fake texts. don't tell lies. I said you are asking questions are being answered by the text, like those who believe in 24 hour literal days. You are worse than the fundamental literalists. At least they give credence to the underlying Hebrew and Greek. And they also understand metaphor.
They are from the bible and anyone can check them out . They are exactly as I say they are and you can't get around them without admitting the bible is at fault. So stop lying! The truth is that two writers of the creation are giving their separate and different accounts which make the whole story debatable if not totally unreliable , you know that is the the truth.
No one is trying to get around them. there is no need to get around what is not there. Your repetition might fool the ignorant - but it has no support for it from the underlying language, from the literature and the genre involved, from the commentators, nor from logic. You like it - good for you. I hope you enjoy it.
Now either the bible and it's writers who are at fault and mistaken, which throws doubt on the whole story or there were as the bible CLEARLY shows that there are indeed two couples created. WHICH IS IT?
You have not thrown doubt on the bible. The only thing that you have managed to throw doubt on is your ability to interpret and understand the literature. I suspect, although I may be wrong, that your starting basis is with another book somewhere and are using that to interpret this text. You certainly are not starting with this text in its genre.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
How do you define what is right and wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Let's all glorify the fictional insecure narcissist created 2,500yrs ago.
I'll have a real purpose if it's all the same to you.
I don't want to glorify anyone who was created 2500 years ago. In fact I don't want to glorify anything was created. God has existed always and always will. without his existence - we don't exist. "God exists - therefore I am". And the bible is far older than 2500 years in any event, so try and do some homework before you continue your nonsense.
As for a real purpose - I assume you are talking about a subjective thingie that you can personally do. It looks like right now it is try and help as many religious people back into the world of non-reality as quickly as possible. It really is hard to be serious with someone who thinks right is wrong and that wrong is the solution - especially the path is destruction.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Now it has been established that this story actually concerns flesh and blood beings, one that is not a reptile of any kind and one that is not omnipresent or omnipotent,we can move on to the more pertinent questions and see what our resident theist have to make of them.
I don't concede this at all. Adam and Eve were flesh. God is omnipotent and omniscient. If the first chapter does not picture the power of God for you, then nothing will. I certainly have seen no evidence from you that the serpent was not a reptile or a snake or a crafty beast.
It clearly states the Adam was punished for his defiance. But look at the punishment>>
Yes Adam was cast out of the garden and forbidden from partaking of the tree of life.
Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Genesis 3:23
Yes, so what? The curse of course made this quite different from before the fall. Now it had thorns and it would mean that Adam would need to fighting the land rather than working with it.
But this,to the close reader, shouldn’t make absolutely any sense at all and make no difference to Adam either! Because this "punishment" of labour in the fields was what this god had intentionally and specifically had created Adam for, if these scriptures are to be believed.As chapter 2 of Genesis makes perfectly clear:
Genesis 2:5"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God Has not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground".?????
All of that is conjecture based on a false premise. God made man to til the ground. Yet he also made man to protect and steward the earth and the way this was going to occur was by doing it according to the will of God and as God determined was right and wrong. God cursed Adam with death - covenantal death and separation from the tree of life. God also cursed the ground before he sent Adam out. Similarly, Eve was cursed with problems during childbirth and the desire for feminism (authority). And the serpent was cursed with eating dust.
Chapter 2 does not contain a second couple but is a zeroing on what God had done in the first chapter. Chapter one is describing the point that God made everything including humanity in broad and general strokes. In Chapter 2 we are given the finer details of the beginning of humanity - being God's high point in creation. It is not two couples but one couple. The first is a general picture and the second is specific. It was this same couple thrown out of the garden.
And we also don't know, and the bible doesn’t explain which couple had listened to the flesh and blood Serpent Lord ?
Well you might know - but the bible is pretty clear there was only one couple - Adam and Eve.
Was it the first pair of Genesis 1:27 “So God Created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”?
Or was it the other two, the male /female pair that was created at Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:22?
Why did god create two pairs?
Had this god forgot that he had created the first pair so just went about creating a second pair?
Why in the second and third creations was themale created out of the dirt and one created via a complicated operation where the male was put to sleep and a part taken from him to create the female?
These are questions the theists are frightened to address because they are complicated if these scriptures are to be believed and taken seriously.
Theists are not frightened to answer these questions - there was only one couple - and the answer is quite simple. Most people reading this book - Christian or non- Christian come to the same conclusion whether they have been steeped in tradition or not. Your conjectures are just that - conjectures which are at odds with literature and the general understanding of the text. The first chapter has one particular point which is that God made everything including humans. This is why there are no specifics of how the humans respond to God. It is a chapter about God. From v. 4 in chapter 2 we then have the specific story of how this first couple was made. It is like we are zoomed in to see what God has done.
This is why your questions will remain unanswered because they are not the questions of the text. If you ask the correct questions then the answers are clear and the text is straightforward. It is the same thing I say to those who advocate a literal 24 hour day. Don't read into the text things which are not there because the questions you are asking are not being addressed. Interestingly, if you were to read the Hebrew text in chapter one you would notice that some things are created - and others are made (or recreated - changed). This is how humanity's making is described. God did not make humans out of nothing - but took what he had created and remade or changed it. Hence when we get to the picture in chapter 2 we are not at all surprised that God took the earth and made man. We are not expecting God to make man out of thin air.
Created: