Die Hard Christians:

Originally posted by Agerg
spam is often defined with respect to usenet groups or unsolicited e-mails but the actual activity you engage in where you bump threads for no other reason than to give a one word/symbol acknowledgement such as "!", "amen",etc... just clutter the forums, add nothing to discussions, and enshroud more considered posts directed at others. This is certainly unsoli ...[text shortened]... on the behalf of most participants of this forum. "Spam" is an apt term for this behaviour

I would agree if it were true that I "bump threads for no other reason than to give a 1 word/symbol" or such.

It is not bumping a thread responding to another's post with a loving expression, and never shall be, yo.

Originally posted by realeyez
That is your choice you may believe what you will. I have been in this section of the chat room to know trying to prove your point and I to say something back will get us no where. So in saying that I wish you the best. I was just answering what I read. 😀

Everybody is free to beleive whatever s/he wants, sure thing. However the report by the scribe or the scribes of the gospel of Matthew (Matthew 28:11-15) does not hold water, as I briefly showed you, and in addition it is not accurate according to Peter (11:43-49).

So, kindly please explain what exact agent forced you to beleive blindly the unjustified report offered by the scribe(s) of the gospel of Matthew
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Everybody is free to beleive whatever s/he wants, sure thing. However the report by the scribe or the scribes of the gospel of Matthew (Matthew 28:11-15) does not hold water, as I briefly showed you, and in addition it is not accurate according to Peter (11:43-49).

So, kindly please explain what exact agent forced you to beleive blindly the unjustified report offered by the scribe(s) of the gospel of Matthew
😵

to which verses are you referring beetle, for Peter, first nor second has any more than five chapters and the book of Matthew chapter eleven, the verses only go up to thirty.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
to which verses are you referring beetle, for Peter, first nor second has any more than five chapters and the book of Matthew chapter eleven, the verses only go up to thirty.

The first quote is the guard’s report according to Matthew 28:11-15 (New International Version):
11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.


The second quote is the guard’s report according to 11:43-49 of the “Gospel of Peter: The Apocryphal New Testament”, M.R. James-Translation and Notes, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924:
XI. 43 Those men therefore took counsel one with another to go and report these things unto Pilate. And while they yet thought thereabout, again the heavens were opened and a 45 man descended and entered into the tomb. And they that were with the centurion (or the centurion and they that were with him) when they saw that, hasted to go by night unto Pilate and left the sepulchre whereon they were keeping watch, and told all that they had seen, and were in great agony, saying: Of a truth he was the son of God. 46 Pilate answered and said: I am clear from the blood of 47 the son of God, but thus it seemed good unto you. Then all they came and besought him and exhorted him to charge the centurion and the soldiers to tell nothing of that they had 48 seen: For, said they, it is expedient for us to incur the greatest sin before God, rather than to (and not to) fall into 49 the hands of the people of the Jews and to be stoned. Pilate therefore charged the centurion and the soldiers that they should say nothing.
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The first quote is the guard’s report according to Matthew 28:11-15 (New International Version):
11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13te ...[text shortened]... d. Pilate therefore charged the centurion and the soldiers that they should say nothing.
😵

i can substantiate the first instance, the second reference is clearly apocryphal and has serious errors.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i can substantiate the first instance, the second reference is clearly apocryphal and has serious errors.

In my opinion both references are apologetic. Methinks the first fails because it is inconsistent with our knowledge (the Roman guards would never act the way it is reported by the autor of the gospal of Matthew), and the second is out of order too because, as you said, it is nothing but a religious apocryphal quote and thus it cannot be considered an historical fact😵

Originally posted by black beetle
In my opinion both references are apologetic. Methinks the first fails because it is inconsistent with our knowledge (the Roman guards would never act the way it is reported by the autor of the gospal of Matthew), and the second is out of order too because, as you said, it is nothing but a religious apocryphal quote and thus it cannot be considered an historical fact😵

when an account of some event has some inconsistencies (so you say but let's run with your version for a sec) do you find it reasonable to assume it is all fabricated? or would it be equally reasonable to assume that some details were lost but the main idea of the event actually happened?

and about those soldiers: by my limited knowledge, the jews asked pilate to give them some soldiers to assign as guards to the tomb. so the guards were in the temporary service of the priests or whoever. why isn't it unreasonable for them to report any glitch to their superiors or better said the ones in whose service they were (in this case the jews)?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
when an account of some event has some inconsistencies (so you say but let's run with your version for a sec) do you find it reasonable to assume it is all fabricated? or would it be equally reasonable to assume that some details were lost but the main idea of the event actually happened?

and about those soldiers: by my limited knowledge, the jews asked ...[text shortened]... to their superiors or better said the ones in whose service they were (in this case the jews)?

The Roman guards took an order from their commander alone, so they would anyway report everything regarding their mission directly to him and not to the Jews.

I don’t accept the report of the resurrection as an historical event/ fact because I have historical objections and because, in addition, as a violation of a natural law the resurrection cannot be considered an historical event. You see, if I would accept a miracle like the resurrection as a factual event, I would have no basis on which I would reject any other miracle -but this is what we are doing when we have to evaluate the historicity of a supposed event/ fact. This is the reason why I consider the reports mythical.
However, methinks a rational person can accept the resurrection (either as a metaphor or as an event/ fact) on the basis of his religious faith alone
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The Roman guards took an order from their commander alone, so they would anyway report everything regarding their mission directly to him and not to the Jews.

I don’t accept the report of the resurrection as an historical event/ fact because I have historical objections and because, in addition, as a violation of a natural law the resurrection cannot ...[text shortened]... ction (either as a metaphor or as an event/ fact) on the basis of his religious faith alone
😵

why is it a violation of natural law? there are accounts of "limited" resurrections. why can't the assumed son of god resurect on a grander scale?

don't you think that what you call natural law is simply your current understanding of the universe? i am sure the flat earth residing on a tortoise was considered at some point natural law.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why is it a violation of natural law? there are accounts of "limited" resurrections. why can't the assumed son of god resurect on a grander scale?

don't you think that what you call natural law is simply your current understanding of the universe? i am sure the flat earth residing on a tortoise was considered at some point natural law.

edit: "why is it a violation of natural law? there are accounts of "limited" resurrections. why can't the assumed son of god resurect on a grander scale?"

Jesus, the so called "assumed son of god", is assumed blindly as such by the Christians only. Furthermore, kindly please report a "limited" resurrection so that I can evaluate your approach;



edit: "don't you think that what you call natural law is simply your current understanding of the universe? i am sure the flat earth residing on a tortoise was considered at some point natural law"

Natural law is simply my current understanding of the universe according to our current philosophic and scientific products (however, the idea of a flat earth residing on a tortoise, it was never considered natural law). I proceed by means of trial and error. I do not proceed by means of blind religious beliefs and unjustified assumptions;


Finally, regarding the historicity of the supposed event/ fact of the resurrection of Jesus, there is no external historical confirmation of the internally contradictory New Testament story. Since the miracle of the resurrection turns the story into a myth, I prefer more natural explanations regarding the origin of this religious belief than the hypothesis that it was triggered because "...Jesus was actually risen from the dead". And I built up this opinion of mine by taking into account the following principles: the consistency of the miscellaneous accounts, the quality of the accounts (are they based solely on eyewitness testimony?), the known reliability/ unreliability of the eyewitnesses and the confirmation of the story by independent testimony. This is the reason I dismiss the unjustified religious assumptions;
😵

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Oh really?

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/guard.html

Well there was some kind of guard there. Seems kinda of stupid if it were a Jewish Guard. I think it comes down to either you believe the account or you don't. Then you still have to deal with sightings of Jesus after the resurrection. Liberal theologians will try to dismiss the resurrection but that is there choice.



Manny






Manny

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Oh really?

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/guard.html

sorry double posted by accident





Manny

Originally posted by black beetle
edit: "why is it a violation of natural law? there are accounts of "limited" resurrections. why can't the assumed son of god resurect on a grander scale?"

Jesus, the so called "assumed son of god", is assumed blindly as such by the Christians only. Furthermore, kindly please report a "limited" resurrection so that I can evaluate your approach;


...[text shortened]... testimony. This is the reason I dismiss the unjustified religious assumptions;
😵

cpr is the first "limited" resurection. a person's heart stops, you get it working again: it's a miracle! the person has resurrected.

sure that individual had brain activity. but a common medieval or ancient man wouldn't know that. so if you are performing cpr in the medieval inquisition spain, prepare to be burnt at the stake.

i also found an article of zombie dogs, dogs that have been drained of blood, put in the freezer then "revived" 2 weeks later to show no sign of altered behaviour.
also check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinically_dead. the purpose of the link is to show just how the definition of "dead dead" is changing as we discover new techniques to bring people back. the limits part of the link then simply becomes a challenge to push them further and by no means they are set in stone.

"I proceed by means of trial and error. I do not proceed by means of blind religious beliefs and unjustified assumptions;"
oh don't you? let's assume you are married, maybe you even are in which case, "live long and prosper". come to think of it, live long and prosper anyway. so assuming you are married, do you assume your spouse loves you? why? do you have proof? can you measure love? is it because she/he made your favourite chilli con carne one day? was it because she/he says so? you can never know for sure. so in a way, each and every person on earth, no matter how rational and/or paranoid and/or skeptical chooses at some point to believe in something by means of "unjustified assumptions".

some take longer leaps of faith. some aren't content to be sure their loved one loves them back until they have a private detective follow him/her for a year.
and not just with love. you have faith the boss will give you that promotion you've wanted. you have faith your national football team will win in france even if no other football enthusiast (of different nationality will believe it).

faith is not a matter of religion. atheists have it too😀 they just choose to ignore what it really is. or some even acknowledge it when it happens, know it is irrational, but choose to believe it anyway because the unshaken faith your wife loves you is better and makes you happier than a feeling of doubt and uncertainty.

my religion makes me happy. i strive to become a better person. and among the reasons to do that there is also the belief that god too is happy at my successes and sad at my failures. god is cheering for me. and everyone else. so if i don't start building a plane that runs on god power and jump off a cliff with it, why is faith a harmful thing?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
cpr is the first "limited" resurection. a person's heart stops, you get it working again: it's a miracle! the person has resurrected.

sure that individual had brain activity. but a common medieval or ancient man wouldn't know that. so if you are performing cpr in the medieval inquisition spain, prepare to be burnt at the stake.

i also found an article ...[text shortened]... uns on god power and jump off a cliff with it, why is faith a harmful thing?

No my friend, methinks CPR is not resurrection. Furthermore, the "zombie" dogs and the clinically dead people that they "came back to life" were not in fact "resurrected" because they were never dead. Death is a phenomenon related to the total irreversible failure of some or of all vital organs and systems of the body that are necessary in order to keep it functional and alive.


I don't assume that my wife loves me. I know she loves me and she proved she loves me; also, she knows I love her and she knows I proved her that I do love her. And I evaluateed that we are together solely because we love each other. However I understand your point and I would like to set ot on another basis: my love to my Maria is not fabricated out of "unjustified assumptions" but out of her overall way of thinking, behaving and living. This complex is measurable and it can be easily evaluated, and thanks to this evaluation I am sure that we love each other. Therefore, our love is not a matter of blind faith.

On the other hand, the behaviour you describe as "faith" is not, in my opinion, faith but "hope". Hope, as well as wishful thinking, to me is merely turbidity and thus filth.
But I do accept that your religion makes you happy and, why not, a better person!
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
No my friend, methinks CPR is not resurrection. Furthermore, the "zombie" dogs and the clinically dead people that they "came back to life" were not in fact "resurrected" because they were never dead. Death is a phenomenon related to the total irreversible failure of some or of all vital organs and systems of the body that are necessary in order to keep ...[text shortened]... t I do accept that your religion makes you happy and, why not, a better person!
😵

Death is a phenomenon related to the total irreversible failure of some or of all vital organs and systems of the body that are necessary in order to keep it functional and alive.

yes, and in the middle ages it was thought that lack of blood flow equals "irreversible" failure. who knows where the irreversible boundary will be in the future.

the fact is we can bring people back from the dead or if you will we push the boundaries of the "irreversible" further and further away. god might be slighly more advanced than us so he managed to bring his son back to prove a point.


you can never prove love. not without doubt. giving gifts, not cheating, making someone happy, challenging them etc are very nice but from a scientific point of view (which you seem to take when approaching religion) its irrelevant. you cannot measure love, you cannot set precise definitions, rules. its not the same for everyone, etc. at some point yo have to make a leap of faith, no matter how small you think it is.

yes, it is a cynical point of view. the fact that we never know for sure of the love another holds for us. but who cares. you can be fairly sure of your love for them. of the fact that you are happy. and that is all that matters. which is basically the same with religion. the religion that enriches your soul, not the hatemongering shackles some people seem to have.