(W:#941)If Christianity were proven true...

[Daisy]

Im not worried in the slightest. I can now focus on how my actions affect other human beings and not a third party

Even better is what Jesus asks Christians to do..."Love your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself"...the 2 are not contradictory...

 

[Drowning Man]

On what basis do you diss the supernatural?

On the basis that I have no reason to believe IN it.

It can't be from science because science has never shown or proven that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

Er...you're mistaking having proof against something vs. having no proof of something.

Just because I don't have proof that there isn't a Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, doesn't mean that I have reason to believe there is one.

It can't be from history because history records any number of supernatural occurrences, among those are the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

"History" records the Greek gods, Egyptian gods, American Indian gods, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc, etc. That there are tall tales, doesn't give rise to believe in those tall tales.

So, show me your EVIDENCE against the resurrection of Jesus. I have evidence, you have a CLAIM WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO BACK YOU UP.

First, you are asking me to prove a negative. That's really impossible to do. It would be like my asking you to prove that there AREN'T invisible purple unicorns that fly out of my butt when I fart.
Second, lack of proof against doesn't make for reasonable belief in something.

And if you want compelling cases - including numerous evidences for modern day miracles - read: “Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener

Yeah...a bunch of believers claiming things that I have no reason to believe are true. /shrug

Also, an Official statement given by The National Academy of Sciences:

"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each." https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion

Yup...and so?

 

[Individual]

That would be Ramoss and Company, who make claims the Judgment won't happen. Their claim is without evidence.

At least I have the Word of God from Jesus, who went to the hereafter and came back and warned about it. There is considerable evidence for the resurrection. So you guys are at least one step behind the curve.

I'd get that in writing if I were you, signed and notarized.

 

[RAMOSS]

That's just more nonsense from the peanut gallery.


Like I've always said, liberals are - generally speaking - history-challenged individuals. The truth of the resurrection has been out there some 2,000 years and still the Christ-deniers have their heads buried in the sand and continue to kick all evidences for it to the curb. You can still hear them wailing, "no mas, no mas, no mas"!! LOL.

Yet, for all your rhethroic, you can not show that what you claim is anywhere near the truth. In fact, the inabilty to distinguish between religion and politics is a sure indication it's entirely false.

 

[RAMOSS]

On what basis do you diss the supernatural?

It can't be from science because science has never shown or proven that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

It can't be from history because history records any number of supernatural occurrences, among those are the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So, show me your EVIDENCE against the resurrection of Jesus. I have evidence, you have a CLAIM WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO BACK YOU UP.

And if you want compelling cases - including numerous evidences for modern day miracles - read: “Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener


Also, an Official statement given by The National Academy of Sciences:

"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each." https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion

Ah yes, the argument 'you can't prove me wrong'. You haven't shown any evidence that the so called 'resurrection of Jesus' is plaything more than a story told by people trying to push bad theology.
This is known as 'shifting the burden of proof'.

The fact you can't show that the ressurrection actually happened except by some books that are pushing an agenda is evidnece it didn't happen. That fact you can't show HOW it could happen, or present a testable sceneio on how it could happen is strong evidence it didn't.

 

[Logicman]

I'd get that in writing if I were you, signed and notarized.

Don't need to. I've already done my homework. The Christ-mockers haven't.

 

[Logicman]

On the basis that I have no reason to believe IN it.



Er...you're mistaking having proof against something vs. having no proof of something.

Just because I don't have proof that there isn't a Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, doesn't mean that I have reason to believe there is one.



"History" records the Greek gods, Egyptian gods, American Indian gods, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc, etc. That there are tall tales, doesn't give rise to believe in those tall tales.



First, you are asking me to prove a negative. That's really impossible to do. It would be like my asking you to prove that there AREN'T invisible purple unicorns that fly out of my butt when I fart.
Second, lack of proof against doesn't make for reasonable belief in something.



Yeah...a bunch of believers claiming things that I have no reason to believe are true. /shrug



Yup...and so?

You haven't done your homework on the historical Jesus. You know that and I know that.

Tell you what - you guys love to play the ones in the know. How about you show me your BEST ONE EXAMPLE ( 1 - JUST ONE) of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). PERSON, PLACE OR EVENT. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your case with some kind of evidence or substantiation why it's fictitious. Please follow the instructions above. Let's see that bad boy.

 

[Logicman]

Ah yes, the argument 'you can't prove me wrong'. You haven't shown any evidence that the so called 'resurrection of Jesus' is plaything more than a story told by people trying to push bad theology.
This is known as 'shifting the burden of proof'.

The fact you can't show that the ressurrection actually happened except by some books that are pushing an agenda is evidnece it didn't happen. That fact you can't show HOW it could happen, or present a testable sceneio on how it could happen is strong evidence it didn't.

Dry up with your bogus claims. The amount of valid evidence about the resurrection that you've been shown over the years was enough to convince a hundred FAIR-MINDED skeptics. The biased agenda is YOURS.

 

[bomberfox]

Even better is what Jesus asks Christians to do..."Love your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself"...the 2 are not contradictory...

Theres a difference in that one is doing something to please a third party.

 

[Logicman]

Yet, for all your rhethroic, you can not show that what you claim is anywhere near the truth.

Yet, for all your rhetoric that the Judgment and resurrection are false, you cannot show that what you are claiming is the truth.

In fact, the inabilty to distinguish between religion and politics is a sure indication it's entirely false.

You're the one in the dark, Ramoss. Like I've said before, the vast majority of liberals are history challenged.

 

[bomberfox]

Don't need to. I've already done my homework. The Christ-mockers haven't.

Evidently not lol. I still have no fear from judgment mentioned in a book of fables that gets basic biology wrong.

 

[RAMOSS]

Dry up with your bogus claims. The amount of valid evidence about the resurrection that you've been shown over the years was enough to convince a hundred FAIR-MINDED skeptics. The biased agenda is YOURS.

Is it a 'bogus claim'? What you call 'valid evidence about the resurrection' is 'evidence of belief' not of actuality. There is a difference between belief, evidence that about belief, and evidence that a belief is true. Thus far, you can not show that what they were pushing was true. You have gotten to the point of 'the bible says', and 'people believed what the bible said', to the point that 'what the bible says is actually true'. You fail on that last step.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yet, for all your rhetoric that the Judgment and resurrection are false, you cannot show that what you are claiming is the truth.



You're the one in the dark, Ramoss. Like I've said before, the vast majority of liberals are history challenged.

Now, if you can only show that your claims are more than just rhetoric That would be something. I don't have to show something is false if it can not be shown to be true.

 

[Drowning Man]

You haven't done your homework on the historical Jesus. You know that and I know that.

Heh...we don't even have one direct eye-witness account of Jesus being alive. Not one. We have stories based on stories.

Tell you what - you guys love to play the ones in the know. How about you show me your BEST ONE EXAMPLE ( 1 - JUST ONE) of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). PERSON, PLACE OR EVENT. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your case with some kind of evidence or substantiation why it's fictitious. Please follow the instructions above. Let's see that bad boy.

Why would I play such a silly game.

First, yes, the bible does reference historical places. So does Pride and Prejudice. Doesn't make the story in that book real.
Second, again, you are asking people to disprove your fantasy. The burden of proof isn't on me. It's on the believer. It's not up to me to disprove what you believe, but for you to show that it's real.

 

[Deuce]

I suppose that some become Christians out of fear of death (the unknown). I don't recall hearing this to be the case for anyone that I've interacted with.

Well, they're not going to say that's why they became Christian, because they don't believe that is the reason.

 

[Overitall]

Well, they're not going to say that's why they became Christian, because they don't believe that is the reason.

I assume honesty from those I interacted with. Most speak of the love of God attracting them to Christianity. Most of those I interacted with were young people who didn't think about dying. Thoughts of invincibility is typical for the young.

 

[Mulefoot]

Heh...we don't even have one direct eye-witness account of Jesus being alive. Not one. We have stories based on stories.

Peter and John were eye-witness accounts. James also.

 

[Drowning Man]

Peter and John were eye-witness accounts. James also.

The gospels were written about 70 AD (40 years after the supposed death of Jesus) by unknown people. It's doubtful that "Peter", "John" or "James" wrote anything... They are stories based on stories...

 

[Mulefoot]

The gospels were written about 70 AD (40 years after the supposed death of Jesus) by unknown people. It's doubtful that "Peter", "John" or "James" wrote anything... They are stories based on stories...

Peter, James and John all wrote letters not included in the gospels.

 

[Drowning Man]

Peter, James and John all wrote letters not included in the gospels.

Or, at least, someone wrote "letters" that others attributed to those characters.

 

[Mulefoot]

Also, possibly the gospels - which were mostly anonymous. It's pretty well up for debate on everything except Pauline letters.

Edited to say possibly. We just don't know

 

[Deuce]

I assume honesty from those I interacted with.

They aren't lying. That's what they believe.

That doesn't mean fear of death wasn't the actual reason.

 

[Drowning Man]

Also, the gospels - which were mostly anonymous. It's pretty well up for debate on everything except Pauline letters.

Many of the "Pauline letters" weren't written by "Paul"...

But even so, "Paul" wasn't, of course, one of the 12 apostles. He was just some dude that claimed to have met "Jesus" on the road. He kind of inserted himself into the theology. IMO, he's a poser.

 

[Overitall]

They aren't lying. That's what they believe.

That doesn't mean fear of death wasn't the actual reason.

I think I prefaced my initial comment on this by saying "some" people might have the fear of death as a motivation. I haven't seen that reason brought up and I don't see where most young people are afraid of dying. It was just my experience as an evangelist, having interacted with thousands of people. You might have had a different experience.

 

[Deuce]

I think I prefaced my initial comment on this by saying "some" people might have the fear of death as a motivation. I haven't seen that reason brought up and I don't see where most young people are afraid of dying. It was just my experience as an evangelist, having interacted with thousands of people. You might have had a different experience.

Right. You haven't seen that reason brought up because people don't believe that about themselves.

Humans are capable of misidentifying their own motivations and feelings.