Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Resurrection evidence really?

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 2:49:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why is it that almost every argument for the resurrection relies on eyewitnesses. Where are these eyewitnesses? Lets look at the resurrection from a historical perspective. First we look at what our oldest and best sources say. The oldest we know if is Mark. Mark says very little, it ends with a man in white proclaiming the resurrection and the women fleeing in horror. So, the resurrection and evidence doesn't actually show up until a decade or 2 later when Matthew and Luke come out. This might not be so bad, if it turns out the resurrection would be in the Q or Quelle source. This is not the case. Q or Quelle is the source material that Luke and Matthew used to write their gospels(along with Mark). Q actually is not concerned with the resurrection and apparently does not mention it to the best of our knowledge. Add this to the fact that we don't have original copies of the gospels, but older copies and when we look at the oldest known bible the Codex Sinaiticus, we find that key elements of the resurrection are missing. Meaning parts ot the resurrection have been added. With this information we are left to question how good are our sources?

Well Matthew and Luke were both written when there probably were few people or age to remember the life of Jesus around. We must also remember that we are dealing with a time where communication and travel were not easy. So, if these ideas where even evolving what would be an hour drive from the witnesses in todays times, it seems highly unlikely 60 or 70 or 80 year olds were traveling that far by their contemporary means of transportation. So, by time Matthew and Luke were written liberties could be easily taken. Also, it seems odd that Jesus deciples who were fisherman and the such, all of sudden wrote fluent greek, when they would have spoke Aramaic. This creates a gap between the authors and the deciples.

So, it turns out that the assumptions that the gospels we have are accurate and of eyewitnesses just does not cut the mustard in a real historical context. Lets look at what people in this day and age were willing to believe. In other gospels circulating around in the first centuries we had Thecla, Pauls companion, having lionesses protecting her from assorted beasts and eventually god killing man eating seals with lightning and concealing her naked body from view with the fire. Hmm, do we believe this actually happened because some ancient book by an unknown christian source says so? There was another early christian text that contained an angel stretching to the sky( I think it was the Gospel of Peter or Thomas, will check when I get home) was this an actual event, because some christian source says so? These things were all believed by people of this time. For years and even after the time of Jesus, we have had hundreds if not thousands of witnesses for Mermaids, in ancient supersticious times such as these, beliefs of people does not equal truth.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 2:51:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 2:49:27 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Why is it that almost every argument for the resurrection relies on eyewitnesses. Where are these eyewitnesses? Lets look at the resurrection from a historical perspective. First we look at what our oldest and best sources say. The oldest we know if is Mark. Mark says very little, it ends with a man in white proclaiming the resurrection and the women fleeing in horror. So, the resurrection and evidence doesn't actually show up until a decade or 2 later when Matthew and Luke come out. This might not be so bad, if it turns out the resurrection would be in the Q or Quelle source. This is not the case. Q or Quelle is the source material that Luke and Matthew used to write their gospels(along with Mark). Q actually is not concerned with the resurrection and apparently does not mention it to the best of our knowledge. Add this to the fact that we don't have original copies of the gospels, but older copies and when we look at the oldest known bible the Codex Sinaiticus, we find that key elements of the resurrection are missing. Meaning parts ot the resurrection have been added. With this information we are left to question how good are our sources?

Well Matthew and Luke were both written when there probably were few people or age to remember the life of Jesus around. We must also remember that we are dealing with a time where communication and travel were not easy. So, if these ideas where even evolving what would be an hour drive from the witnesses in todays times, it seems highly unlikely 60 or 70 or 80 year olds were traveling that far by their contemporary means of transportation. So, by time Matthew and Luke were written liberties could be easily taken. Also, it seems odd that Jesus deciples who were fisherman and the such, all of sudden wrote fluent greek, when they would have spoke Aramaic. This creates a gap between the authors and the deciples.

So, it turns out that the assumptions that the gospels we have are accurate and of eyewitnesses just does not cut the mustard in a real historical context. Lets look at what people in this day and age were willing to believe. In other gospels circulating around in the first centuries we had Thecla, Pauls companion, having lionesses protecting her from assorted beasts and eventually god killing man eating seals with lightning and concealing her naked body from view with the fire. Hmm, do we believe this actually happened because some ancient book by an unknown christian source says so? There was another early christian text that contained an angel stretching to the sky( I think it was the Gospel of Peter or Thomas, will check when I get home) was this an actual event, because some christian source says so? These things were all believed by people of this time. For years and even after the time of Jesus, we have had hundreds if not thousands of witnesses for Mermaids, in ancient supersticious times such as these, beliefs of people does not equal truth.

Just found it, it was the gospel of Peter with 2 giant angels and even a Supersized Jesus. Are we seeing the exageration that grew as his contemporaries passed away?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 2:52:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you think I'm reading all that crap, you better get back to reality.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 2:53:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 2:52:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
If you think I'm reading all that crap, you better get back to reality.

yes historical criticism of the resurrection will be too much for you, no problem.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 2:55:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 2:52:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
If you think I'm reading all that crap, you better get back to reality.

Good luck in college.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:08:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In all seriousness though, I read PCP's long a$s links about "evidence" for the resurrection -- three paragraphs won't kill ya. That's the problem with technology and kids these days lol they can't process anymore than a few tidbits of information at a time because we're so used to getting punchlines of information very quickly.

Basically he said that eyewitness testimony (which is the only evidence of the resurrection, and everything else is based off that) is not reliable because people at that time had to pass everything on orally over time, and people were known to accept random absurdities at that time. Of course PCP's article addressed this, but it's up to you to discern who makes the better case. I'd say the articles are far more articulate than izbo but I obviously agree with izbo that this "proof" is hardly substantial.
President of DDO
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:11:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:08:47 PM, Danielle wrote:
In all seriousness though, I read PCP's long a$s links about "evidence" for the resurrection -- three paragraphs won't kill ya. That's the problem with technology and kids these days lol they can't process anymore than a few tidbits of information at a time because we're so used to getting punchlines of information very quickly.

Basically he said that eyewitness testimony (which is the only evidence of the resurrection, and everything else is based off that) is not reliable because people at that time had to pass everything on orally over time, and people were known to accept random absurdities at that time. Of course PCP's article addressed this, but it's up to you to discern who makes the better case. I'd say the articles are far more articulate than izbo but I obviously agree with izbo that this "proof" is hardly substantial.

Far more articulate then something I wrote on my lunch break, no couldn't be. But thanks
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:13:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I do agree with Izbo10, for once; the 'evidence' for the Resurrection lies within a host of works that can't really stand up to the standards of historical texts or writings...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:20:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:19:20 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol.

http://www.amazon.com...

why don't you present some evidence not an amazon link.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:22:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Erhm... remind me why evidence and proof are important to religious people again? Or did you mean "theists" (not necessarily the same thing).. or did you mean fundamentalists?

I know I just pointed this out in another thread, but there are religious atheists. And by that I don't mean that they proselytize atheism, I mean that they go to religious ceremonies with others that profess the same religion (not atheism... atheism isn't a religion), some of whom are theists, and are a part of that social organization.

Oddly, the lack of evidence or proof concerning the historical accuracy of the religious texts they use never really comes up. They don't consider it relevant to the purposes of religion. But, then, being atheists, I suppose they have a different concept of what religion is good for than, say, fundamentalists do.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:26:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:22:48 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
Erhm... remind me why evidence and proof are important to religious people again? Or did you mean "theists" (not necessarily the same thing).. or did you mean fundamentalists?

I know I just pointed this out in another thread, but there are religious atheists. And by that I don't mean that they proselytize atheism, I mean that they go to religious ceremonies with others that profess the same religion (not atheism... atheism isn't a religion), some of whom are theists, and are a part of that social organization.

Oddly, the lack of evidence or proof concerning the historical accuracy of the religious texts they use never really comes up. They don't consider it relevant to the purposes of religion. But, then, being atheists, I suppose they have a different concept of what religion is good for than, say, fundamentalists do.

what does this have to do with my post about the historical truth of the resurrection?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:31:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:26:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
what does this have to do with my post about the historical truth of the resurrection?

Well, you wrote three paragraphs about it. I assume this topic means something to you.. Why does it matter to you whether the proof exists or not?

Would it matter to you if there was proof? If some scientist did find a way to show it took place, would that automatically mean there is a god? No, we both know it would not automatically follow one from the other. So what is the point of bringing it up at all?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:34:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:31:55 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:26:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
what does this have to do with my post about the historical truth of the resurrection?

Well, you wrote three paragraphs about it. I assume this topic means something to you.. Why does it matter to you whether the proof exists or not?

Would it matter to you if there was proof? If some scientist did find a way to show it took place, would that automatically mean there is a god? No, we both know it would not automatically follow one from the other. So what is the point of bringing it up at all?
\

For the sake of truth. If the resurrection fails as a historical event, christianity as we know it is wrong. That is important. You seem completely unaware how important religion is, and its truth value should be important.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:40:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:34:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:31:55 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:26:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
what does this have to do with my post about the historical truth of the resurrection?

Well, you wrote three paragraphs about it. I assume this topic means something to you.. Why does it matter to you whether the proof exists or not?

Would it matter to you if there was proof? If some scientist did find a way to show it took place, would that automatically mean there is a god? No, we both know it would not automatically follow one from the other. So what is the point of bringing it up at all?
\

For the sake of truth. If the resurrection fails as a historical event, christianity as we know it is wrong. That is important. You seem completely unaware how important religion is, and its truth value should be important.

Which part of Christianity? All of it? According tho whose interpretation? That term they use "personal god" - that gives them a whole lot of leeway in terms of interpretation.

I am kind of fond of that whole "Golden rule" thing. And a few of the other verses are really quite lovely and meaningful. Then there are the parts that are just beautiful, even if the meaning is ambiguous... of course, some of it is pure crap, but that's no reason to throw the whole thing out.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:41:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:40:12 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:34:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:31:55 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:26:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
what does this have to do with my post about the historical truth of the resurrection?

Well, you wrote three paragraphs about it. I assume this topic means something to you.. Why does it matter to you whether the proof exists or not?

Would it matter to you if there was proof? If some scientist did find a way to show it took place, would that automatically mean there is a god? No, we both know it would not automatically follow one from the other. So what is the point of bringing it up at all?
\

For the sake of truth. If the resurrection fails as a historical event, christianity as we know it is wrong. That is important. You seem completely unaware how important religion is, and its truth value should be important.

Which part of Christianity? All of it? According tho whose interpretation? That term they use "personal god" - that gives them a whole lot of leeway in terms of interpretation.

I am kind of fond of that whole "Golden rule" thing. And a few of the other verses are really quite lovely and meaningful. Then there are the parts that are just beautiful, even if the meaning is ambiguous... of course, some of it is pure crap, but that's no reason to throw the whole thing out.

You know main stream christianity Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected. How hard is this for people to grasp, that is basic orthodox christianity of today.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:45:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:40:12 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:34:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:31:55 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:26:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
what does this have to do with my post about the historical truth of the resurrection?

Well, you wrote three paragraphs about it. I assume this topic means something to you.. Why does it matter to you whether the proof exists or not?

Would it matter to you if there was proof? If some scientist did find a way to show it took place, would that automatically mean there is a god? No, we both know it would not automatically follow one from the other. So what is the point of bringing it up at all?
\

For the sake of truth. If the resurrection fails as a historical event, christianity as we know it is wrong. That is important. You seem completely unaware how important religion is, and its truth value should be important.

Which part of Christianity? All of it? According tho whose interpretation? That term they use "personal god" - that gives them a whole lot of leeway in terms of interpretation.

I am kind of fond of that whole "Golden rule" thing. And a few of the other verses are really quite lovely and meaningful. Then there are the parts that are just beautiful, even if the meaning is ambiguous... of course, some of it is pure crap, but that's no reason to throw the whole thing out.

The golden rule was already in play in the first century bce it was part of Philo's Logos going around. Not unique to christianity at all. The loving parts of Christianity are more from Philo and the Logo and Paul then a historical Jesus.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:48:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:41:26 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:40:12 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:34:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:31:55 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:26:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
what does this have to do with my post about the historical truth of the resurrection?

Well, you wrote three paragraphs about it. I assume this topic means something to you.. Why does it matter to you whether the proof exists or not?

Would it matter to you if there was proof? If some scientist did find a way to show it took place, would that automatically mean there is a god? No, we both know it would not automatically follow one from the other. So what is the point of bringing it up at all?
\

For the sake of truth. If the resurrection fails as a historical event, christianity as we know it is wrong. That is important. You seem completely unaware how important religion is, and its truth value should be important.

Which part of Christianity? All of it? According tho whose interpretation? That term they use "personal god" - that gives them a whole lot of leeway in terms of interpretation.

I am kind of fond of that whole "Golden rule" thing. And a few of the other verses are really quite lovely and meaningful. Then there are the parts that are just beautiful, even if the meaning is ambiguous... of course, some of it is pure crap, but that's no reason to throw the whole thing out.

You know main stream christianity Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected. How hard is this for people to grasp, that is basic orthodox christianity of today.

Bah. That part only matters for people who are worried about going to hell. I know a bunch of Christians that never concern themselves with that part. As far as they are concerned, everyone goes to heaven. Yeah, I suppose the story about the resurrection plays a part in that belief, but I really don't think that they are all that concerned with proving it. I don't think the majority of Christians care one way or the other about weather the resurrection was an actual historic event.

It's sad that the only Christians the media pays attention to are the fundamentalists. It's gives the rest of Christian society a bad name. I have tried to argue that they should police each other concerning the extreme behavior fundies sometimes exhibit, but I have to admit I have never had much luck with it.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:53:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:48:00 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:41:26 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:40:12 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:34:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:31:55 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:26:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
what does this have to do with my post about the historical truth of the resurrection?

Well, you wrote three paragraphs about it. I assume this topic means something to you.. Why does it matter to you whether the proof exists or not?

Would it matter to you if there was proof? If some scientist did find a way to show it took place, would that automatically mean there is a god? No, we both know it would not automatically follow one from the other. So what is the point of bringing it up at all?
\

For the sake of truth. If the resurrection fails as a historical event, christianity as we know it is wrong. That is important. You seem completely unaware how important religion is, and its truth value should be important.

Which part of Christianity? All of it? According tho whose interpretation? That term they use "personal god" - that gives them a whole lot of leeway in terms of interpretation.

I am kind of fond of that whole "Golden rule" thing. And a few of the other verses are really quite lovely and meaningful. Then there are the parts that are just beautiful, even if the meaning is ambiguous... of course, some of it is pure crap, but that's no reason to throw the whole thing out.

You know main stream christianity Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected. How hard is this for people to grasp, that is basic orthodox christianity of today.

Bah. That part only matters for people who are worried about going to hell. I know a bunch of Christians that never concern themselves with that part. As far as they are concerned, everyone goes to heaven. Yeah, I suppose the story about the resurrection plays a part in that belief, but I really don't think that they are all that concerned with proving it. I don't think the majority of Christians care one way or the other about weather the resurrection was an actual historic event.

It's sad that the only Christians the media pays attention to are the fundamentalists. It's gives the rest of Christian society a bad name. I have tried to argue that they should police each other concerning the extreme behavior fundies sometimes exhibit, but I have to admit I have never had much luck with it.

they are providing cover for the fundamentalists and are retarding the proof, by promoting themselves as someone who believes this, this is actually a basic tenent of christianity that jesus died on the cross for us. This was not always the case as there were gnostic christians in the early centuries who believed in all to be metaphorical, but that is not the christianity that is meant in this day and age.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:01:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:53:51 PM, izbo10 wrote:

they are providing cover for the fundamentalists and are retarding the proof, by promoting themselves as someone who believes this, this is actually a basic tenent of christianity that jesus died on the cross for us. This was not always the case as there were gnostic christians in the early centuries who believed in all to be metaphorical, but that is not the christianity that is meant in this day and age.

You mean the Christianity the media shows us?

This is a pitfall a lot of atheists fall into, mistaking the popular portrayal of Christianity the way the majority of actual Christians think and feel about it. Well, to be fair, the same goes for the view Christians have of atheists. Both are mistaken, but you really have to take the time to do the field work yourself to find that out.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:02:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 4:01:55 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:53:51 PM, izbo10 wrote:

they are providing cover for the fundamentalists and are retarding the proof, by promoting themselves as someone who believes this, this is actually a basic tenent of christianity that jesus died on the cross for us. This was not always the case as there were gnostic christians in the early centuries who believed in all to be metaphorical, but that is not the christianity that is meant in this day and age.

You mean the Christianity the media shows us?

This is a pitfall a lot of atheists fall into, mistaking the popular portrayal of Christianity the way the majority of actual Christians think and feel about it. Well, to be fair, the same goes for the view Christians have of atheists. Both are mistaken, but you really have to take the time to do the field work yourself to find that out.

are you kidding me, I am not portraying anything beyond basic tenants, Jesus lived died on the cross and was resurrected.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:17:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 4:02:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:01:55 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:53:51 PM, izbo10 wrote:

they are providing cover for the fundamentalists and are retarding the proof, by promoting themselves as someone who believes this, this is actually a basic tenent of christianity that jesus died on the cross for us. This was not always the case as there were gnostic christians in the early centuries who believed in all to be metaphorical, but that is not the christianity that is meant in this day and age.

You mean the Christianity the media shows us?

This is a pitfall a lot of atheists fall into, mistaking the popular portrayal of Christianity the way the majority of actual Christians think and feel about it. Well, to be fair, the same goes for the view Christians have of atheists. Both are mistaken, but you really have to take the time to do the field work yourself to find that out.

are you kidding me, I am not portraying anything beyond basic tenants, Jesus lived died on the cross and was resurrected.

No kidding.

Yeah, I know that is a basic tenant, but it's not the only one.. I refer you back to the Golden Rule - and I remember you have already pointed out that tenant is not unique to Christianity, well I am pretty sure you also are aware that the resurrection isn't unique to Christianity either. There are lots of dying-and-rising deities.

I'm telling you that while all Christians know the story, most of them (ok, most of the Christians I know.. maybe my experience is unusual, but I know it isn't unique) don't spend a lot of time thinking about it or what it means for them. If you could prove it never happened, they would not be bothered by it. They would still be Christians anyway. Their reasons for being involved in the religion have very little to do with the disposition of their souls.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:35:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 4:17:12 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:02:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:01:55 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:53:51 PM, izbo10 wrote:

they are providing cover for the fundamentalists and are retarding the proof, by promoting themselves as someone who believes this, this is actually a basic tenent of christianity that jesus died on the cross for us. This was not always the case as there were gnostic christians in the early centuries who believed in all to be metaphorical, but that is not the christianity that is meant in this day and age.

You mean the Christianity the media shows us?

This is a pitfall a lot of atheists fall into, mistaking the popular portrayal of Christianity the way the majority of actual Christians think and feel about it. Well, to be fair, the same goes for the view Christians have of atheists. Both are mistaken, but you really have to take the time to do the field work yourself to find that out.

are you kidding me, I am not portraying anything beyond basic tenants, Jesus lived died on the cross and was resurrected.

No kidding.

Yeah, I know that is a basic tenant, but it's not the only one.. I refer you back to the Golden Rule - and I remember you have already pointed out that tenant is not unique to Christianity, well I am pretty sure you also are aware that the resurrection isn't unique to Christianity either. There are lots of dying-and-rising deities.

I'm telling you that while all Christians know the story, most of them (ok, most of the Christians I know.. maybe my experience is unusual, but I know it isn't unique) don't spend a lot of time thinking about it or what it means for them. If you could prove it never happened, they would not be bothered by it. They would still be Christians anyway. Their reasons for being involved in the religion have very little to do with the disposition of their souls.

What has been the christian stance, for the most part, is their resurrection is unique because it actually happened here on earth..
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:40:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 4:35:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:17:12 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:02:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:01:55 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:53:51 PM, izbo10 wrote:

they are providing cover for the fundamentalists and are retarding the proof, by promoting themselves as someone who believes this, this is actually a basic tenent of christianity that jesus died on the cross for us. This was not always the case as there were gnostic christians in the early centuries who believed in all to be metaphorical, but that is not the christianity that is meant in this day and age.

You mean the Christianity the media shows us?

This is a pitfall a lot of atheists fall into, mistaking the popular portrayal of Christianity the way the majority of actual Christians think and feel about it. Well, to be fair, the same goes for the view Christians have of atheists. Both are mistaken, but you really have to take the time to do the field work yourself to find that out.

are you kidding me, I am not portraying anything beyond basic tenants, Jesus lived died on the cross and was resurrected.

No kidding.

Yeah, I know that is a basic tenant, but it's not the only one.. I refer you back to the Golden Rule - and I remember you have already pointed out that tenant is not unique to Christianity, well I am pretty sure you also are aware that the resurrection isn't unique to Christianity either. There are lots of dying-and-rising deities.

I'm telling you that while all Christians know the story, most of them (ok, most of the Christians I know.. maybe my experience is unusual, but I know it isn't unique) don't spend a lot of time thinking about it or what it means for them. If you could prove it never happened, they would not be bothered by it. They would still be Christians anyway. Their reasons for being involved in the religion have very little to do with the disposition of their souls.

What has been the christian stance, for the most part, is their resurrection is unique because it actually happened here on earth..

You are mistaking the Fundamentalist Christian stance (the evangelical stance) for the Christian stance. Not all Christians are evangelicals, and in fact less than half are.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:43:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 4:40:13 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:35:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:17:12 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:02:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:01:55 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 3:53:51 PM, izbo10 wrote:

they are providing cover for the fundamentalists and are retarding the proof, by promoting themselves as someone who believes this, this is actually a basic tenent of christianity that jesus died on the cross for us. This was not always the case as there were gnostic christians in the early centuries who believed in all to be metaphorical, but that is not the christianity that is meant in this day and age.

You mean the Christianity the media shows us?

This is a pitfall a lot of atheists fall into, mistaking the popular portrayal of Christianity the way the majority of actual Christians think and feel about it. Well, to be fair, the same goes for the view Christians have of atheists. Both are mistaken, but you really have to take the time to do the field work yourself to find that out.

are you kidding me, I am not portraying anything beyond basic tenants, Jesus lived died on the cross and was resurrected.

No kidding.

Yeah, I know that is a basic tenant, but it's not the only one.. I refer you back to the Golden Rule - and I remember you have already pointed out that tenant is not unique to Christianity, well I am pretty sure you also are aware that the resurrection isn't unique to Christianity either. There are lots of dying-and-rising deities.

I'm telling you that while all Christians know the story, most of them (ok, most of the Christians I know.. maybe my experience is unusual, but I know it isn't unique) don't spend a lot of time thinking about it or what it means for them. If you could prove it never happened, they would not be bothered by it. They would still be Christians anyway. Their reasons for being involved in the religion have very little to do with the disposition of their souls.

What has been the christian stance, for the most part, is their resurrection is unique because it actually happened here on earth..

You are mistaking the Fundamentalist Christian stance (the evangelical stance) for the Christian stance. Not all Christians are evangelicals, and in fact less than half are.

Between fundamentalism and Catholism, both take this stance that is the majority. An even greater majority if pressed for an answer would claim the resurrection historical. You are in the minority of Christians that I have ever encountered, it may not be important to them but they still believe it.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:53:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 4:43:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Between fundamentalism and Catholism, both take this stance that is the majority. An even greater majority if pressed for an answer would claim the resurrection historical. You are in the minority of Christians that I have ever encountered, it may not be important to them but they still believe it.

I'm not a Christian. I have just taken the time to get to know a lot of Christians. I had a roommate who was a minister once, and a relative who became a minister more recently.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:54:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 4:53:01 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:43:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Between fundamentalism and Catholism, both take this stance that is the majority. An even greater majority if pressed for an answer would claim the resurrection historical. You are in the minority of Christians that I have ever encountered, it may not be important to them but they still believe it.

I'm not a Christian. I have just taken the time to get to know a lot of Christians. I had a roommate who was a minister once, and a relative who became a minister more recently.

That explains a lot depending on which denomination and their requirements for seminary or not.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:59:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 4:54:14 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:53:01 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:43:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Between fundamentalism and Catholism, both take this stance that is the majority. An even greater majority if pressed for an answer would claim the resurrection historical. You are in the minority of Christians that I have ever encountered, it may not be important to them but they still believe it.

I'm not a Christian. I have just taken the time to get to know a lot of Christians. I had a roommate who was a minister once, and a relative who became a minister more recently.

That explains a lot depending on which denomination and their requirements for seminary or not.

I also know Catholic priests (at least 3 of them) that think about their religion the same way. The viewpoint you think is the most common, is not as common as you think it is.

In any case, I have made my point. you either get it or you don't. Please feel free to carry on with your tearing down the evangelical world view at your leisure.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:07:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 4:59:48 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:54:14 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:53:01 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:43:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Between fundamentalism and Catholism, both take this stance that is the majority. An even greater majority if pressed for an answer would claim the resurrection historical. You are in the minority of Christians that I have ever encountered, it may not be important to them but they still believe it.

I'm not a Christian. I have just taken the time to get to know a lot of Christians. I had a roommate who was a minister once, and a relative who became a minister more recently.

That explains a lot depending on which denomination and their requirements for seminary or not.

I also know Catholic priests (at least 3 of them) that think about their religion the same way. The viewpoint you think is the most common, is not as common as you think it is.

In any case, I have made my point. you either get it or you don't. Please feel free to carry on with your tearing down the evangelical world view at your leisure.

Judging your view on those who have had to go to seminary is skewed.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.