Benefits of Christianity

KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Benefits of Christianity

I pressured a theist to explain what benefit Christianity had on society. Here's his quote

theist wrote:

Benefits of Christianity throughout history:

The personal transformation of billions of human beings

The preservation of the western world against the Islamic world and paganism

Some of the greatest art in existence

Some of the greatest music in existence

Some of the best literature in existence

The foundation of the political ideas for individual life, liberty, equality, exercise of conscience, understanding of human nature in terms of the need for checks and balances, and the mportance of the rule of law, applicabl to all regardless of status

The moral underpinnings for charitable organizations, including two of the largest in the world - the Red Cross and the Salvation army

The foundation of thousands of hospitals

The foundation of countless schools, colleges, and universities, some of which ar the most reknown schools of all time

The ending of slavery

The foundation of scientific exploration

That's a short list.

What about atheism; what has it been responsible for?

What do you guys think? I think the most ridicolous one is "the foundation of scientific exploration". The "preservation against islamic world and paganism" is quite phobic tbh.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
JonB. wrote: What I would

JonB. wrote:
What I would love to see is two separate science classes: those who want to study science in light of the theory of evolution, and those who want to study it in light of Christianity.

Ahhh, so you Christians want to eat your cake and have it too?

Tell you what, if the motivation is 'really' to give equal consideration to 'all' theories and 'worldviews' being taught, then include all the other religious 'teachings' in your churches, as well as the sciences (both good and bad sciences).

Ya, 'Teach The Controversy' is really a misnomer for trying to get Intelligent Design (aka 'God') taught in public schools, to breed the next generations of bronze age automatons in a world where science and technologies gives a clear advantage to individuals and countries.

JonB. wrote:
Is not science the study of events and processes in the past, present, and the future?

No. It's a method.

JonB. wrote:
... if miracles are found in these categories, even if they turn out to be false, is not science required to study them?

There's no obligation to study anything.

JonB. wrote:
I have actually heard testimonies and second person accounts of people suddenly getting better, or coming just short of death, in which the only explanation is indeed a miracle

That's hyperbole.

How could anyone possibly claim that they have ruled out any other possibility with our limited knowledge of reality?

JonB. wrote:
 Miracles are phenomena that can be proven and verified just like any other process or occurrence.

Really?

Really??

How many Nobel prizes were awarded for proven and verified miracles, and can you link to the white papers and data?

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
This old thread of mine is a

This old thread of mine is a blast from the past. I had fun arguing the OP before they banned me. Not sure why this thread was resurrected... must be a miracle!


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
double post

double post

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There is no such thing as

There is no such thing as christian science. Science is science. When the christians have science to offer, it's found in science journals.

Besides, are you really willing to open that can of worms? You want a sunni moslem, shiite moslem, mormon, calvinist, baptist, scientologist, wiccan, etc.? You REALLY want 500 different science courses teaching contradictory things? Because that's what will happen when you let religious belief supercede proven and testable science.

Miracles are subject to science. That's how we know there haven't been any.

On to the response to my response.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1: Aha, but there wasn't ONE

1: Aha, but there wasn't ONE christian burning cities and libraries, and forcing their beliefs on people in undeveloped nations; the MAJORITY of christians were involved. ARMIES of christians, with the support of the church. That makes it a christian fault.

1.5: Then why has the church split a hundred times over? Why have christians disagreed with other christians so much as to kill each other over it? Clearly the bible is insufficient to even hold the religion itself in one piece, let alone bind humanity entire.

2: I'm the opposite. If an all powerful all knowing christian god really existed, then all meaning and joy in my life would end. Your god knows everything, so I have no choice in life. All is predetermined. I am reduced to less than a lab rat. I become irrelevant, as does all human progress. As does humanity itself. Nothing matters except choosing between heaven and hell, so to speak.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
3: Uh uh, many churches have

3: Uh uh, many churches have been built by the state in many countries. Many more from the proceeds of religious conquest and forced native labour.

I wasn't speaking about the average christian today, I spoke of the church itself. The church that hoards money, doesn't pay taxes, and only donates extra funds that weren't reserved for the maintenance of the church or promoting its lies.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Please learn to quote

JonB. wrote:
"Please point to what you consider 'advanced' ideas in the Bible."

Leviticus is filled with these: many of the rules that would have made no sense to the Israelites make perfect sense with today's knowledge. Leviticus 11 talks of clean and unclean foods. Pigs and shellfish were among the unclean. The truth is, with the medical knowledge of the Israelites' day, many diseases associated with these animals would have been deadly. Also, rigorous washing rituals are found throughout the book, required after many unclean (both Biblically and in reality) activities and occurrences. Doctors themselves did not begin to wash their hands until the last few centuries. These, and other cases in the Bible, point to an omniscient God who knew what was healthy for his people and what wasn't.

I discover by searching that the above is a response to BobSpence. JonB, please use the "quote" button so we know to whom you are replying in each instance.

The above answer ignores the fact that the same ideas of washing were prevalent in other cultures at the time. That is, there was nothing new or unique about the bible. It simply reflected existing terms of knowledge, as you would expect.

If god were truly omniscient, don't you think god might have had more to say about curing leprosy than sprinkling pigeon blood about the place? Might not god understand that people get leprosy, houses do not? You will find those absurdities, with many others, in Leviticus. I mentioned a couple of other bible absurdities like the number of legs on an insect, and whether a rabbit chews the cud. God does not know much, does he?

I also asked (amongst other questions) in response to your claim about scientific inspiration in the bible:

Pacioli wrote:
 show me advanced concepts from the bible, not involving post-hoc interpretation but actual inspiration of ideas. Provide documentation for the relevant scientists

That is, I am looking for something clearly in advance of natural knowledge of the era, something scientific only god would know, and which then specifically inspired one or more scientists to a related discovery. Got anything?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The prohibition against

The prohibition against shellfish relative to 'scaled' fish is based on primitive intuitions, and has no justification in real health risks. It is based on intuitive judgements, that sea-creatures with fins and scales are ok, others not, which has no real broad justification.

Possibly at some location there was some infection of the shellfish that induced health problems in the locals, or perhaps they tried a species that was poisonous, while people eating fish were ok, that became enshrined in their 'folk wisdom'.

This is not 'advanced wisdom'. If that's your typical example, you should just admit you have no case.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


JonB.
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2011-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Normal 0 "As for

Normal 0

"As for purpose in life.  Does god/s/dess text you every day - or even monthly - with updates?  'Dude, there is a soul needing your testimony four blocks north of your current street preacher stake out.'   Didn't think so. You are also wandering around in the dark.  There is no light.  No one out there leading you.  You are leading yourself."

The truth is, he does. I have talked to many people (including my dad) who have had God tell them something they had no way of knowing, or to go somewhere for seemingly no reason at the time, but ending up in touching someone’s life. One person, a pastor, was involved in a youth event where groups of youth would hop into a car and have someone start driving them around while they prayed. Suddenly, one would get a street name from God, and tell the driver. Soon, another would get a house number from God, and tell the driver again. Someone else would get knowledge about problem, or issue, like cancer, from God. They would then knock on the door and ask if they had heard right, and if so, if they could pray for the person. They usually had heard right, and the person was really touched. Another time, my dad was in church when he received information about the lady in front of him, and he felt called to tell her. When he relayed this information to her, she was completely shocked because no one had known about it. Yet another time, he received information about his mother (my grandmother). It was some interesting stuff, and he prayed along time about it before he got up the courage to call her to talk to her about it. Sure enough, the knowledge was accurate, and absolutely no one had known about it. They cried, and worked through it. These are merely a few examples, and I don't think I could disprove these instances if I wanted to.

"Now, is this all that terrible?  Why would you think so?  I am perfectly capable of leading myself.  I am very capable of enjoying this life.  I have friends and family I love.  I enjoy rainbows, rain on the roof, waterfalls, sunsets and so on.  (Hm, the water theme is because I grew up in the desert.  Water is precious.)  There is joy in every day I manage to wake up."

I think it is perfectly possible to enjoy life without God; it is just that the joy one has with God is far more complete and lasting. Anyone, regardless of his beliefs, can enjoy life when all is going well, but only God in someone's life can give joy in the hard and tragic times as well.

“Attempting to "save" me from hell accomplishes nothing in making this a better world to live in.  And I'm not interested in being "saved" - just ask that JW sister of mine.”

My main motive in witnessing to you is that you might begin to think about accepting Christ as your personal savior, and that God would change your heart. However, it is also true that saving you would indeed make this a better world to live in. A true Christian is an upright, joyful, law-abiding, caring, and compassionate citizen. As Christians are supposed to be Jesus’ examples in this world, every person who truly comes to Christ benefits the world in his doing so.

“Every one leaves a legacy when they die - even the poorest and least apparently significant people.  With their family, their neighborhood, their friends and sometimes further afield such as this forum. …So you are wasting time you could be using to restore natural habitat in your neighborhood.  Or raising your children.  Or cleaning your room - which is a valid and good purpose for making the world a better place to live.  This is my purpose - that where I live will be at least not dirtier, maybe cleaner, maybe happier, at least not sadder.  That my family will remember me with fondness, and will go on to do good and be bright.  What more could anyone ask for?”

I know I personally want my life to be so much more than a good influence or memory. I certainly want to have an impact in my world and in the lives of the people around me, but I want so much more than that. I want to be able to walk with God, so to speak. I want to be able to have a relationship with him. Even more amazing is the eternal life with him after this world, given to whoever accepts Christ as his redeemer. God cannot stand for anything less than perfection, and as he knew that we could not even come close, he sent his son, Jesus (really God himself), to die as a way to pay for our imperfection. Jesus’ perfect life followed by his ultimate sacrifice paved over our inability to be perfect. His death allows all who believe in him to have their “ticket into heaven” paid for them, as we could not possibly pay for it ourselves. If we admit we are sinners (we all sin), believe that Jesus was God’s son (God), and confess that we are sorry for our sins, Jesus enters into our lives, and gives us the ability to not sin. Not that Christians immediately become perfect, or won’t ever mess up in the future, but that they are no longer bound and unable to break away from sin. This way, we are able to change, and, when we die, God overlooks the imperfection of all who believe in Jesus. I believe it is our responsibility to make our world a better place, but the majority of our time and efforts should be used to accept his gift, draw close to God, and share this amazing prospect with others.

 


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
JonB, you are going nowhere interesting.

Having bombed out completely on responding to points or answering questions about the failure of your proposition that the bible is scientific (it doesn't even make sense), you are now offering only preaching.

After a couple of weeks to think about it, that is all you have? Is that the only way you can stop yourself from noticing facts?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
JonB. wrote: Normal 0

JonB. wrote:

Normal 0

My main motive in witnessing to you is that you might begin to think about accepting Christ as your personal savior, and that God would change your heart. However, it is also true that saving you would indeed make this a better world to live in. A true Christian is an upright, joyful, law-abiding, caring, and compassionate citizen. As Christians are supposed to be Jesus’ examples in this world, every person who truly comes to Christ benefits the world in his doing so.

 

Did you read my tag line.  The first one is my very own -

I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

This is not a lie.  It is not an exaggeration.  I have attended church, I have tried - very hard and very sincerely - to believe and be a good christian.  And it just isn't there for me.  Witnessing to me is a waste of your time.  A true christian may be all the things you have mentioned.  But I have never met a true christian, so I wouldn't know.  The world will be a better place when we get off our duffs and work to make it a better place.  No god required.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
WTF?

 

JonB wrote:

Some may be able to believe that we exist just because we evolved from primordial soup, and the whole point of our existence is just to have fun, and help others on the side, and that when we die we simply cease to exist. However, I am not satisfied with that; I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins so that I can have a relationship with God. I believe that my purpose is to bring others into this relationship, and that, when those who have a relationship with Christ die, they will go to heaven and live with him for eternity. THAT is what I live for, and I enjoy this life tremendously.

 

Since when was existence ever about having fun, presumably in the complete absence of love, empathy and responsibilities of any kind? To help others 'on the side'? As an afterthought?

You are assuming the moral high ground on the basis of no evidence, claiming the existence of deities on the basis of no evidence and having a relationship with a concept generated by your own imagination. 

Try not to be so sanctimonious about your hallowed relationship with your contrived best friend. A majority of us are former christians and know precisely what you are talking about.

We know the moral inconsistency you are living and which sadly, you are prepared to blithely accept in order to achieve a figment of paradise. To save your own hide. 

Personally, I want to live a real life, to serve real humans, to make real sacrifices and never to embrace doctrines that elevate threats of violence against others of my species to a state of false divinity. 

Dying for friends is a human story, Jon. Immortal deities are not capable of making the supreme sacrifice. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I know I personally

Quote:
I know I personally want my life to be so much more than a good influence or memory. I certainly want to have an impact in my world and in the lives of the people around me, but I want so much more than that. I want to be able to walk with God, so to speak.

Self contradictory. If the christian god is real, then you cannot have influence, good or bad. You have no choices and no impact. You are nothing and you mean nothing. Instead, god takes all the credit and all the blame. It takes and is everything you are, have been, and will be for itself, because it made humanity knowing what everyone and everything would ever do. All existence becomes the predetermined delusions of an insane superbeing.

I'd much rather my life mean something.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The idea that another person

The idea that another person could 'die for your sins' is so deeply immoral and nonsensical as to be offensive.

The only way your 'sins' could be meaningfully offset or 'atoned for' is by doing whatever you could to help the persons you 'sinned' against, who you harmed, or if it is too late for that, their surviving family or close friends.

If no other person was actually harmed, physically or emotionally, by whatever act constituted your 'sin', you actually did nothing to be forgiven for.

If the one 'sinned against' was God, as I am frequently told by Theists, that is crazy, since the idea that any mortal act can 'harm' a God in any way is nonsense.

If the 'sin' is purely disobeying an edict of God, that also is not of itself a moral wrong. If disobeying an authority figure was inherently wrong, then we would be obliged to condemn every rebel against a dictator, such as all those brave people in the 'Arab Spring'.

We would have been obliged to pardon all the Nazis in the Nuremberg Trials who could claim 'we were just following orders'

Might does NOT make right.

Wanting to walk with the evil creature who designed us with the defects that lead to cancer, who let loose on the Earth the disease organisms and parasites that afflict so many, especially young children, who 'created' an unstable Earth prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, which also cause vast pain, distress, and death, is pathologically perverted. Especially to value such a personal fantasy over the emotional rewards of helping real people in distress, to leave some positive legacy for the future.

You are sick. You sanctimonious perverted bastard.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:If the one

BobSpence1 wrote:

If the one 'sinned against' was God, as I am frequently told by Theists, that is crazy, since the idea that any mortal act can 'harm' a God in any way is nonsense.

Christians are simply masochists with self loathing defending their 'master's' arbitrary malevolence.

BobSpence1 wrote:
You are sick.

Both the masochistic and self loathing tendencies, as well as the attempts to justify their 'master's' malevolance are patently and severely dysfunctional. Add to that the delusional and irrational fears of an invisible 'being' that others cannot see, is also dysfunctional.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The tendency to value the

The tendency to value the prospect of 'walking with God' over helping real people during their real life is one of the key negatives of religious belief, maybe the worst.

In its strongest form, it can lead people to actually cause harm if they believe it might secure their place in heaven. Maybe killing an 'infidel' or two is worth it.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The whole original sin bs is

The whole original sin bs is an obvious tie to an ancient and disproved/abandoned, but once and currently a cornerstone of justice systems of primitive cultures, concept that a son is responsible for the crimes of the father. The religion simply outlasted the culture.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
You'd actually be wrong

You'd actually be wrong since "Original Sin" is pretty modern, relative to the religion it tried to glom itself onto.  It also isn't shared with the other one of the three to come out of the same dysfunctional family.

The reason you're wrong, in re, ancient legal codes is that the son may or may not, take your pick, be responsible for the crimes of the parent.  It depended on the specific region and code itself.  One of the best advances in the legal codes my ancestors achieved was abolishing that particular foolishness within the Middle East.  And we were pretty good at it until the Romans murdered a million or so of us and made up a new religion ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not wrong. The majority

I'm not wrong. The majority of primitive cultures that prevailed and we can say one way or the other used the system I gave, and it has been abandoned by the majority of advanced cultures today. That there are exceptions to a standard does not disprove the standard is a standard.

You also contradict yourself, by first claiming it wasn't prevalent in ancient history only to later claim judaic credit for abolishing it in one of the most populated regions of the time, before the "son/father" relationship in christianity (and christianity itself) even existed.

In short, you didn't discredit anything I said, you merely provided me with evidence that I was right in the first place while attempting to suggest that I wasn't.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


JonB.
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2011-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi, I'm

Normal
0


Hi, I'm back.

Before I continue though, I would like to suggest calming things down a bit. I know this is a hot topic, but I did not come on here to make enemies. Honest. I just wanted to point out some things that I consider true, and hope you may end up sharing my view. I know it sounds stupid, but I would really like to have a calm debate. No mocking, biting people's heads off, or calling people names (this is a rather general statement; it doesn't apply to all). My plan when I came on here was just to throw a bunch of ideas around, and talk about them.

One common topic I have noticed in your comments is that of God inspiring people to kill people or acting in other forms of violence. I freely admit that God did lead the Israelites into battle, and that is a fairly common topic in the Old Testament. I cannot really give a complete reason for this, other than the fact that almost all of the other civilizations were doing the same thing. It was sort of a kill-or-be-killed era.

However, since then, there have been no commands to destroy infidels (I'm not trying to pick fights, but that phrase is actually located in the Koran), blow up buildings, or burn books. Those who have were not acting as Christians, and I don't believe they were. They may have acted the way they thought they were supposed to, but they were really wrong.

Another common theme is that of the impossibility or perversity of God dying for our sins. As you put very well, these sins are usually made against another person, so it seems ridiculous to apologize to God for it. The truth is, I agree with you in one way: that we really should be "doing whatever you could to help the persons you 'sinned' against, who you harmed, or if it is too late for that, their surviving family or close friends" as BobSpence put it. However, the reason for apologizing to God, as well as for God dying for our sins, is that he cannot stand sin. He is holy, and it is simply impossible for sin to be in His presence. The reason we ask forgiveness is so that we can have a right standing before God again.

As to the comment about many of you being past Christians, I apologize. I didn't realize this; I wasn't trying to shove it down anyone's throat; I was simply sharing what I believe and revealing something that I thought many of you may have never heard before, or at least in that way.

Just one side-note: Atheistextremist said, "Dying for friends is a human story, Jon. Immortal deities are not capable of making the supreme sacrifice." I would disagree with this statement. Since God is sovereign, then he can do anything man can, and so much more.

Finally, cj said, "I have attended church, I have tried - very hard and very sincerely - to believe and be a good christian." I find this is a common misconception (no offense) and I often find myself slipping into this as well. The truth is, we cannot be good Christians (as I said before, I apologize to those who have heard this before and are getting tired of it; I am saying it at the chance that someone may have not heard it, or someone may read it and see it in a new way). "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). That's the whole point of Jesus dying for us: we cannot possibly be good enough. That's what being a Christian is: letting Jesus change us, and take our sin away so that we can stand in God's presence. Of course we are supposed to be our best, but not because that is how to make it to God. No, we are our best because of our love for Him, and as we let Jesus change us more and more, our best gets better.

I have met people who call themselves Christians, but to them it is all about tradition, going to church, and being good. I would find it awfully exhausting and boring to do that. What the church is supposed to be is just a group of Christians who meet with God, and encourage one another (the emphasis being on the former). Church is supposed to be worshipping the God who loves us more than our wildest dreams. Also, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is the “deposit” in a TRUE Christian’s life, and that’s is what makes him who he is. The Holy Spirit what changes him from the inside out, and is the one who connects him to God. That is what invigorates me, and the times when I stop trying to be good enough for God and just let Him take me as I am are when I am truly satisfied and at peace.

Now, as I said in the beginning, I would be more than happy to respond to any and all comments or arguments with this (and future) reply(s). However, I would greatly appreciate it if this was a civilized (I know; cliche) debate.

 

 


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
 Jon, do you consider it

 Jon, do you consider it discourteous for someone to ask you questions? You made clear claims about the bible advancing knowledge and science, were asked about it and have delivered nothing since but preaching and your oddity just above. Might it not be courteous of you to support your claims, or to withdraw them?

Apart from crying hurt fawn, with general claims of insult which you make no attempt to substantiate, your latest post is in fact an excellent description of the pointlessness of the god notion. You tell us yourself that your god led armies to massacre when that was a common activity among humans and has done rather less of it as humans themselves localised the habit rather than keeping it general. Sounds very human, your god, who even stops his attack when faced with iron chariots. Such a human level of power, so human a path of moral development.

Why did your god not simply leave his son dead, if it was to be a sacrifice (barbaric as that practice may be)? Your god seems to like get-out-of-jail-free cards. How terrible was this death, that was meted out also to thousands of others, a habit of the day? You have a pretty standard religious tale to tell, with a pretty standard lack of evidence or even a rationale.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
JonB. wrote: I know this is

JonB. wrote:
I know this is a hot topic, but I did not come on here to make enemies. Honest.

But you believe you're 'right' about things. Unless you can demonstrate the method so we can achieve the same results, we would have to grant you that.

I'm not willing to do that in this instance. I suspect that there are many others here would feel the same.

JonB. wrote:
I just wanted to point out some things that I consider true, and hope you may end up sharing my view.

I don't know why. Is there any obligation for anyone to share your view, and if so, how did you come to know that you're not mistaken?

JonB. wrote:
I know it sounds stupid, but I would really like to have a calm debate. No mocking, biting people's heads off, or calling people names (this is a rather general statement; it doesn't apply to all). My plan when I came on here was just to throw a bunch of ideas around, and talk about them.

It would be best if there weren't any contradictions in what you claim to know, then...

JonB. wrote:
However, the reason for apologizing to God, as well as for God dying for our sins, is that he cannot stand sin.

Then why wait around when it occurs? Why not stop it when he sees the intent to sin?

JonB. wrote:
He is holy, and it is simply impossible for sin to be in His presence.

This does not follow.

Is he not omnipresent?

JonB. wrote:
The reason we ask forgiveness is so that we can have a right standing before God again.

I thought it was to save us from his wrath.

JonB. wrote:
Now, as I said in the beginning, I would be more than happy to respond to any and all comments or arguments with this (and future) reply(s). However, I would greatly appreciate it if this was a civilized (I know; cliche) debate.

I believe I've met your criteria.

 


 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


JonB.
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2011-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Pacioli wrote: Jon, do you

Pacioli wrote:

 Jon, do you consider it discourteous for someone to ask you questions? You made clear claims about the bible advancing knowledge and science, were asked about it and have delivered nothing since but preaching and your oddity just above. Might it not be courteous of you to support your claims, or to withdraw them?

Apart from crying hurt fawn, with general claims of insult which you make no attempt to substantiate, your latest post is in fact an excellent description of the pointlessness of the god notion. You tell us yourself that your god led armies to massacre when that was a common activity among humans and has done rather less of it as humans themselves localised the habit rather than keeping it general. Sounds very human, your god, who even stops his attack when faced with iron chariots. Such a human level of power, so human a path of moral development.

Why did your god not simply leave his son dead, if it was to be a sacrifice (barbaric as that practice may be)? Your god seems to like get-out-of-jail-free cards. How terrible was this death, that was meted out also to thousands of others, a habit of the day? You have a pretty standard religious tale to tell, with a pretty standard lack of evidence or even a rationale.

I'm sorry if I didn't answer some of the comments that have been given: frankly, there have been too many to answer each individually. Please point me to the ones you want me to answer, and I will gladly do so.

And, no, I don't consider it discourteous for someone to ask me questions. I was not trying to whine, just steer the debate towards a more positive approach (I didn't really appreciate being called a bastard [not by you, Pacioli, I know]). And, like I said, my previous statement was very general; many on the site have been very mature in their approach to the debate.

"You tell us yourself that your god led armies to massacre when that was a common activity among humans and has done rather less of it as humans themselves localised the habit rather than keeping it general."

Like I said, I am not completely certain of the reason why; it does seem odd for a God of righteousness to do so. However, another possibility is that, at that time, there was no way for the gentiles to be reconciled to him. I know you are going to ask, "But why did God slaughter them?" Once again, I have no definite answer.

"How terrible was this death, that was meted out also to thousands of others, a habit of the day?"

The main difference here was that God, totally innocent, died in our place. True, there were many others who, on today's standards, did not deserve death. Yet humans are all sinful, and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). God did not deserve it, yet He died in our place anyway.

"Your god seems to like get-out-of-jail-free cards."

Not really. As you mentioned in your comment, His son had to die for it. It wasn't very free.

One analogy I heard (though with analogies, nothing can completely describe it) is that of a young lady who was caught speeding. She showed up in court, and the judge fined her two hundred dollars. Then, the judge got off of his bench, took off his judicial robes, and paid the money. The judge was the lady's father; he couldn't look the other way, or he wouldn't have been just. However, he loved her enough to pay the price for her. One can look at that as foolishness, or marvel at it and be thankful.

"Why did your god not simply leave his son dead, if it was to be a sacrifice (barbaric as that practice may be)?"

Many claiming to be divine have died, but they haven't risen from the dead. Jesus stands alone on this point. His death took our sin and displayed His holiness and justice; His resurrection displayed his power and glory.

As to the barbaric-ness of it all, someone always has to pay for forgiveness. If someone graffiti's your home, you can forgive him, but you still have to clean it off. As mentioned above, "the wages of sin is death". Instead of making us pay for it, God did it Himself.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Some of the

KSMB wrote:
Some of the greatest art in existence

Some of the greatest music in existence

Some of the best literature in existence

To add more to my point of 5 years ago.  It's a stretch to claim that religion is responsible for these three things.  Religious people wrote great books, have painted great paintings, and have created some great music.  I would contend that those people already had a proclivity to be talented in that area.  Would they have been unable to create their art if they had been atheist?  It's unreasonable to think so.

Interestingly, atheism has no accomplishments.  

There are however a great many atheists with accomplishments.  Hopefully one day we'll see the world through a different lens.  One in which we just view accomplishments for what they are... like I already do in my own life. 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
JonB. wrote:I'm sorry if I

JonB. wrote:
I'm sorry if I didn't answer some of the comments that have been given: frankly, there have been too many to answer each individually. Please point me to the ones you want me to answer, and I will gladly do so.

Let me see now, there would be #32, no answer there, or three questions at the end of #43, substantially reiterated in #57 because there had been no answers, and still no answers. All in all, the bible has already been shown here to hold less scientific knowledge than was generally around at the time and to offer nothing new. This is the word of god, to look exactly like the word of less educated men? 

 

JonB wrote:
Pacioli wrote:
"You tell us yourself that your god led armies to massacre when that was a common activity among humans and has done rather less of it as humans themselves localised the habit rather than keeping it general."

Like I said, I am not completely certain of the reason why; it does seem odd for a God of righteousness to do so. However, another possibility is that, at that time, there was no way for the gentiles to be reconciled to him. I know you are going to ask, "But why did God slaughter them?" Once again, I have no definite answer.

A rational answer is that they were the actions of people who happened to believe in this god rather than that god or some other god. There are and were always thousands from which to choose, all of them equally ineffective or human-like in their behaviour. Alternatively, you can keep the god-belief and realise you are without an explanation or rationale. Have you considered ditching the god, the one which can not face iron chariots but sends bears to maul children for impertinence and approves the murder of unarmed royal prisoners?

JonB wrote:
Pacioli wrote:
"How terrible was this death, that was meted out also to thousands of others, a habit of the day?"

The main difference here was that God, totally innocent, died in our place. True, there were many others who, on today's standards, did not deserve death. Yet humans are all sinful, and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). God did not deserve it, yet He died in our place anyway.

Pacioli wrote:
"Your god seems to like get-out-of-jail-free cards."

Not really. As you mentioned in your comment, His son had to die for it. It wasn't very free.

Many claiming to be divine have died, but they haven't risen from the dead. Jesus stands alone on this point. His death took our sin and displayed His holiness and justice; His resurrection displayed his power and glory.

No, it was no sacrifice. He popped off for three days then toddled off to heaven, according to the mutually inconsistent myths in the gospels. Some sacrifice.

What is it with blood sacrifice to atone for sins anyway? Is that the extent of your god's morality, to behave as ancient tribes and primitive civilisations did, boasting how he loves to smell burning flesh, while non-Jews were already working out that gods were really pretty useless and unlikely to exist?

Quote:
One analogy I heard (though with analogies, nothing can completely describe it) is that of a young lady who was caught speeding. She showed up in court, and the judge fined her two hundred dollars. Then, the judge got off of his bench, took off his judicial robes, and paid the money. The judge was the lady's father; he couldn't look the other way, or he wouldn't have been just. However, he loved her enough to pay the price for her. One can look at that as foolishness, or marvel at it and be thankful.
Then the same judge heard of another person speeding but they did not come to court so the judge ordered that they be captured and have their finger and toe nails ripped out one by one to be followed by other tortures forever. How is your god's justice going? Don't you think the judge rather stupid to allow his daughter not to face the monetary consequences of her actions anyway, to the extent of civil law rather than ancient goat-herder's law?

JonB wrote:
Pacioli wrote:
"Why did your god not simply leave his son dead, if it was to be a sacrifice (barbaric as that practice may be)?"

As to the barbaric-ness of it all, someone always has to pay for forgiveness.

The morally nescient may think that but the fact is nobody did pay, not even in your god's barbaricly primitive terms. You can not say on the one hand it was wonderful that it was a sacrifice and on the other that it was wonderful that it was a piece of cake for an omnipotent god.

Quote:
If someone graffiti's your home, you can forgive him, but you still have to clean it off. As mentioned above, "the wages of sin is death". Instead of making us pay for it, God did it Himself.
If someone puts graffiti on my home, I do not consider it rational to condemn them to eternal torture.  Apparently, your god does. Why would you agree with such a being, an ignorant sociopath, or is that why you believe so fervently, fear of a capricious, immoral killer?

 


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
For the record, I think none

For the record, I think none of the above descriptions of the supposed god, there being no evidence of any god about which to think anything.  I am merely noting the huge nonsensicality of religious notions of the three Abrahamic gods.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
JonB. wrote:I'm sorry if I

JonB. wrote:

I'm sorry if I didn't answer some of the comments that have been given: frankly, there have been too many to answer each individually.

You are contradicting yourself:

JonB. wrote:
Now, as I said in the beginning, I would be more than happy to respond to any and all comments or arguments

 

*********************************

 

JonB. wrote:
Please point me to the ones you want me to answer, and I will gladly do so.

Any and all.

Like you said you'd be more than happy to do.

JonB. wrote:
... there have been too many to answer each individually

Ask God for the strength...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Minor nit, because this

Minor nit, because this always seems to get into the discussion -- "clean" and "unclean" have nothing to do with dirt, filth, disease, etc.  They refer to "proper" and "improper" and not to "cleanliness" or "filthiness".  Something is "proper" only because G-d said so.  A "proper" animal can be an absolute slob, and an "improper" animal can be fastidious -- cats aren't kosher, despite being cleaner than dogs.  Which are also unkosher.

The animals that were "clean" were not scavengers or predators, for the most part, which is likely the origin of "no shellfish" -- most of them are filter-feeders, bottom-feeders, other general "dead stuff" eaters.

Of the mammals -- hey were pastoral animals -- grazing, herding, milking, then slit their throats and eat them.  Only healthy animals are kosher, giving people who raise animals for slaughter an incentive to keep them healthy.  A "downer" cow is unkosher, even though it's a cow.  And the method of slaughter is ONE slice, across the throat, severing both carotid arteries =and= the trachea.  "Shechita" is about as humane as killing an animal gets.  The animal isn't just going to be dead really fast, it's going to be very dead really fast.  Compare this to "captive bolt" and "cattle prod up the butt."  No "killing at a distance" or other ways of killing.  You have to be there, you have to do it.

Of the birds -- no raptors or other predators.  Chicken, duck, turkey -- kosher.  Hawk, owl, vulture -- unkosher.

Of the fish -- no apex predators (Shark is unkosher).

There are some rabbinic sources which have suggested that the purpose of the dietary laws is to get Jews to become vegetarians ...

Yours for a better understanding of "clean" and "unclean" ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
JonB. wrote:"You tell us

JonB. wrote:

"You tell us yourself that your god led armies to massacre when that was a common activity among humans and has done rather less of it as humans themselves localised the habit rather than keeping it general."

Like I said, I am not completely certain of the reason why; it does seem odd for a God of righteousness to do so. However, another possibility is that, at that time, there was no way for the gentiles to be reconciled to him. I know you are going to ask, "But why did God slaughter them?" Once again, I have no definite answer.

He's asking about the various wars the Israelites were involved in.  The bible gives fairly clear explanations, including explanations of who the Israelites =weren't= to make war on.  This has nothing to do with forgiveness.

Quote:
"How terrible was this death, that was meted out also to thousands of others, a habit of the day?"

The main difference here was that God, totally innocent, died in our place. True, there were many others who, on today's standards, did not deserve death. Yet humans are all sinful, and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). God did not deserve it, yet He died in our place anyway.

"Humans are all sinful" is a Christian invention and the bible does record that there were others who were "blameless before G-d".

Nor can =anyone= (as the Atheists here will also explain) pay for our sins.  A sin is nothing more than a mistake, or an action which harms another.  If you harm someone, you make restitution.  If you sin against G-d, well, there's a way to solve that one as well.  But the key is that you have to learn from your mistakes.  Christianity takes that away.

Quote:
"Your god seems to like get-out-of-jail-free cards."

Not really. As you mentioned in your comment, His son had to die for it. It wasn't very free.

One analogy I heard (though with analogies, nothing can completely describe it) is that of a young lady who was caught speeding. She showed up in court, and the judge fined her two hundred dollars. Then, the judge got off of his bench, took off his judicial robes, and paid the money. The judge was the lady's father; he couldn't look the other way, or he wouldn't have been just. However, he loved her enough to pay the price for her. One can look at that as foolishness, or marvel at it and be thankful.

It's a nice story, but unless she learned some kind of lesson, I suspect she'll be back to speeding.  What the nice story doesn't tell is whether or not her father made her repay the money.  When my son wrecked one of my vehicles, he had to work off the deductible.  Which child do you think learned the better lesson?

Quote:
"Why did your god not simply leave his son dead, if it was to be a sacrifice (barbaric as that practice may be)?"

Many claiming to be divine have died, but they haven't risen from the dead. Jesus stands alone on this point. His death took our sin and displayed His holiness and justice; His resurrection displayed his power and glory.

As to the barbaric-ness of it all, someone always has to pay for forgiveness. If someone graffiti's your home, you can forgive him, but you still have to clean it off. As mentioned above, "the wages of sin is death". Instead of making us pay for it, God did it Himself.

 

Ignoring, for a moment, that human sacrifice isn't permitted in the Hebrew Bible, and that the sacrifice of an animal with even a single physical blemish is absolutely forbidden, and that polytheism is absolutely forbidden, if (l'havdil) Jesus was G-d, his death is completely meaningless -- G-d doesn't experience pain or any other human feeling or emotion.  G-d isn't a person.

Nor would any of this have been any kind of news.  The entire "My G-d, My G-d, why have you forsaken me?" comment is theater of the worst sort.  A deity which, as John says, was there at the moment of Creation, already knows how this is all going to play out.  The Romans are going to put on a show trial, beat the snot out of him, drive nails through him, then leave him to die.  He already knows this.  And, supposedly, he even knows he's going to be dead for about 30 hours, then pop out of the tomb Saturday night and say "Hi" to a few close friends.

Most of Passion Week isn't supported in any sort of history.  No record of a trial, or execution, or renting of the Temple veil, or mass resurrection of people in Jerusalem.  The recorded events are completely inconsistent with the claimed prophecy =and= the claimed prophecy has no basis in any actual prophecy.  The entire theology is a complete fabrication.

Finally, the only sacrifice on which this could be based is the Scape Goat from Yom Kippur, but the trial and execution of Jesus doesn't fit that one either.  In the Yom Kippur ritual, there were two goats.  One was taken outside the city and set free.  Jesus wasn't set free.  The other was slaughtered and turned into smoke.  Jesus wasn't turned into smoke.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
JonB. wrote: ... God,

JonB. wrote:
... God, totally innocent

That's a positive claim.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Define 'innocent'.

JonB. wrote:
His son had to die for it.

It seems you have a very different definition of death.

In my 'worldview' it's the absence of life.

Give me your definition of 'death'.

JonB. wrote:
It wasn't very free.

It seems this comment is based on your unique definition of 'death'.

Obviously he was still alive enough to disappear after promising to return.

So, it seems this is more about his suffering on the cross.

How do you know what he personally experienced on the cross?

Did he say it hurt?

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok Lemme see.

KSMB wrote:
I pressured a theist to explain what benefit Christianity had on society. Here's his quote
theist wrote:
Benefits of Christianity throughout history: The personal transformation of billions of human beings The preservation of the western world against the Islamic world and paganism Some of the greatest art in existence Some of the greatest music in existence Some of the best literature in existence The foundation of the political ideas for individual life, liberty, equality, exercise of conscience, understanding of human nature in terms of the need for checks and balances, and the mportance of the rule of law, applicabl to all regardless of status The moral underpinnings for charitable organizations, including two of the largest in the world - the Red Cross and the Salvation army The foundation of thousands of hospitals The foundation of countless schools, colleges, and universities, some of which ar the most reknown schools of all time The ending of slavery The foundation of scientific exploration That's a short list. What about atheism; what has it been responsible for?
What do you guys think? I think the most ridicolous one is "the foundation of scientific exploration". The "preservation against islamic world and paganism" is quite phobic tbh.

Personal transformation---No. they're no different then anyone else

Preservation of the western world- Some what but on the grand scale---No.

Art- OK, but that don't make anyone a Christian.

Some -yes

some -yes

More some

Understanding of human nature---0

Enough already.

The guy isn't a Christian.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:So, it seems

redneF wrote:

So, it seems this is more about his suffering on the cross.

How do you know what he personally experienced on the cross?

Did he say it hurt?

 

Assume for the sake of argument that it did.

Jesus was supposedly (G-d forbid) "G-d".

Now ask yourself this question -- does it make sense for an omnipotent god to feel pain?

Not so much.

Go read the bit from after the trial -- the dude they set free?  His name was Jesus  bar Abbas.  You know what "bar Abbas" means?  "son of the Father."

Muslims got this one right -- Jesus of Nazareth never even got crucified.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:redneF

FurryCatHerder wrote:

redneF wrote:

So, it seems this is more about his suffering on the cross.

How do you know what he personally experienced on the cross?

Did he say it hurt?

 

Assume for the sake of argument that it did.

I bet that it would hurt like a sonofabitch.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Jesus was supposedly (G-d forbid) "G-d".

Ya, the 'Material Virgin and the Immaterial Magic Sperm' story.

I'm with ya...lol

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Now ask yourself this question -- does it make sense for an omnipotent god to feel pain?

For the sake of argument, I'll have to grant this, since my WTF meter is all blowed up...

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Not so much.

Of course not, he's a spirit occupying a physical meatsuit. He doesn't have to actually plug in to the brain where the pain resides.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Go read the bit from after the trial -- the dude they set free?  His name was Jesus  bar Abbas.  You know what "bar Abbas" means?  "son of the Father."

Muslims got this one right -- Jesus of Nazareth never even got crucified.

I'm not going to take anything on 'faith'.

It seems to me that at least one of the bodies from the many men who got tortured and executed around that period could have gotten lost after their death.

Tie together another bunch of myths and legends about men 70 yrs after this missing body story and you could convince enough superstitious folk that the missing corpse, the Magic God Sperm man, the turning water into wine, walking on water, prophet man were all one and the same, and you could start a cult, assemble a 'New Law' and supersede the Old Testament, and create a rival following because the Magic Sperm Prophet's price of admission into an eternal land of Milk and Honey was so 'Low Maintenance'.

Nah....that kind of hoax could never get pulled off back then.

The record keeping was too good then and the average famished desert mouthed dust sucker was too smart for dat!!

Because of entropy, we've been getting dumber and dumber, yanno?

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:It seems to me

redneF wrote:

It seems to me that at least one of the bodies from the many men who got tortured and executed around that period could have gotten lost after their death.

Lost?  He was nailed to a cross not earlier than around 3pm on Friday, and taken down and turned over not later than 6pm the same day.

Crucifixion is a slow and painful death, in which the person slowly suffocates as they are unable to push or lift their body back up to breath.  It typically took more than a day for the condemned to die.

The times are very well fixed because Passover happens so close to the Vernal Equinox -- nightfall is 6pm local time and he needed to be "buried" before sundown and the start of the Sabbath Friday night.  However much time it would take to remove a person from a cross, wrap them up in whatever needed wrapping, and carry them over to wherever they were carried -- all that time has to be backed out from 6pm local time.

Where Christians completely botch the "resurrection" is not understanding that the Sabbath ends Saturday at sundown.  John 20:1 says that Mary showed up at the tomb at the beginning of the first day, which began Saturday at 6pm local time, and the tomb was already empty.  Sunday afternoon, Jesus shows up -- still on the "first day".

If there's an error in timing, it's on the order of minutes, not hours.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."